About natural rent and Russia's inefficiency
“The Belarusian model has exhausted itself. But no one is in a hurry to leave the swamp. ” With such an interesting title comes the article on TUT.BY. Read on, and then what?
“The famous Russian scientist George Malinetsky, describing the state of the Russian economy, said:“ We have already lost the present. We need to think about the future. ” Along with the scandalous characteristics of the situation in the country of his liberal opponent, banker German Gref at the Gaidar Forum (“Downshifter country”, “technological enslavement of the country by the West”, etc.), this indicates the seriousness of the situation ... "
Here, you know, interesting, insanely interesting, incredible. The title is about Belarus, and it’s almost impossible to disagree with it. From the quarry you are accelerating, and there about Russia ... they begin to tell. It reminds an old joke about a “talented” student who, having Germany on the ticket, but not being ready to talk about her, began his speech like this: “... But speaking of Germany, it’s impossible not to say about her neighbor, France.”
Just an incredibly talented approach. We have, sorry, two very different economic systems. And the “Russian model” refers to the “Belarusian model” approximately as a cabinet to a kitchen service. The Belarusian model of the economy today is absolutely a unique thing.
Now regarding the Russian model of the economy: I do not agree with both “speakers” - and with Gref, and with the bar, that is, ugh, with “the well-known Russianоnym ". Nonsense are gentlemen. Rather, not so much talking nonsense, as engaged in political propaganda. Everything is simple (we have already done this in the late USSR): everyone wants to live richly, and those who already live richly want to live more and more richer.
There is, however, an economic system that provides “peopleяm ”a certain standard of living. Plumbing one, another professor, a third gangster. And everyone is unhappy, which is typical, everyone absolutely reasonably believes that their labor is undervalued. Even in a great book on stories antiquity can be found complaining gray-haired professor, that, they say, even then (thenKarl, under Augusta-Octavian!) "People of mental labor" were paid less than skillful artisans (what does he hint at?).
In short, all unhappy, from banker to racketeer. And then someone (all in white) appears on the scene, who declares: “All our rulers are thieves and idiots! We can live five times better and richer! (I know the password, I see the landmark ...) "What is the general reaction? It is simple: “That's it, Mikhalych! And the men did not know ... "
- That's how much you get? Yes, yes, you!
- Two hundred rubles.
- Do you want to receive two thousands dollars?
All in shock. The trick is that no one bothers you to want at least two thousand dollars, even the moon from the sky. And when the “brilliant reforms” of the theoretical economist end in complete collapse, you can lose not only the “two hundred rubles”, but also the last pants. But people are underway.
You should always ask another question: “What are you specifically do you propose to do it? ”This is usually much more difficult. It turns out that people are for investment and innovation and against backwardness and bureaucracy. "Brilliant economists" begin to speak loudly, confusedly, nervously, to wave their arms and use incomprehensible foreign terms. No, they do not need to be considered as all cheaters. It's just that if a person counts something on a piece of paper there and suggests, on the basis of these calculations, immediately change the life of a huge country ... Sorry.
The Russian economic model is quite a working one. She survived under sanctions in the face of falling oil prices. And the sanctions were aimed precisely at the destruction of the Russian economy. Not deterrence, but destruction. Oil prices fell (at times!), And at the same time (as if by chance), we were cut off lending in Western banks. Such is the "combo", aimed at defeating the Russian economy. This is a war, an economic war.
The Russian economy has survived. It should be understood that the situation we have now is a situation of "wartime", and not the normal course of events. And even in such extreme conditions, nothing terrible happened. Just compare with 90 (when we did everything on the orders of liberal economists) and the crisis of 98. That is, then everything was so, very sadly, and at the slightest whiff of international financial winds, the system was covered with a copper basin.
As for today's days: you know, it is difficult to engage in investments and innovations when they want to destroy you. Just wipe out the planet.
"It is hardly at all correct to speak of the Russian" model of economic growth for 2000's. " Since this “model” was based only on high oil prices, the development of the Soviet legacy in the economic turnover and hopes for the action of the “invisible hand of the market”. And the world market. " Alexander Obukhovich, an economist, the author of the very article with a beautiful title.
Nobody wants to believe in the “Russian miracle”. Absolutely no one. Putin was just lucky with high oil prices. That's the point. Sorry, gentlemen, oil in Kazakhstan’s economy (with a very small population) is much more significant. There, the oil industry is almost everything. But did it help Kazakhstan a lot in “fed zero”? No, not a disaster, of course. And yet: to say that the "zero" Kazakhs made a powerful leap forward, is not necessary. Azerbaijan is a country with even smaller population and with very large oil (not in icy Siberia). So what? Somehow they all sadly ended with the fall in oil prices.
“But this is Russia, where, firstly, there is a steady flow of natural rent into the economy of the country (prices have fallen - there has been less, but still a lot)”. Alexander Obukhovich.
Such here in Belarus economists. As Dersu Uzala said: “There are eyes, there is no see.” In the economy of Saudi Arabia, "natural rent" comes with enviable regularity. The population is small, the cost of oil production is minimal ... So what? As a result of the decline in oil prices, a full-scale political crisis is unfolding there. Everything very badly. The same goes for Venezuela. The same goes for Kazakhstan.
Then there are two funny signs: the role of oil exports in GDP (percent) and barrels of exports per capita.
Look, funny, huh? (Prices fell - it began to arrive less, but still - a lot). And every honest Belarusian can scratch his head: Russia is a gas station country. Clear. A respected economist operates with funny terms: it is still a lot. As a preschooler about (who still does not know how to count).
Any serious analysis involves tsifir. So, if you look at the numbers ... Yes, Russia exports almost at the level of the Saudis. But she has more than five times the population. So she also herself consumes this magical liquid (transport, industry, heating!). So net exports per capita are very small. It is a pity that many “economists” do not like to turn to figures and prefer to operate with slogans. Russia retains more than half of the oil produced (share of gas exports is less than 30 percent!). Kazakhs and Azeris to 90 percent of the oil produced are driven for export. Three-quarters of the oil produced is sold to tolerant and technologically advanced Norwegians.
Sorry for the bluntness, but the level of "economic analysis" below the plinth is a country-gas station, a country-gas station ... There are countries for which oil is all. And not so little of them on the map. And they have no other perspectives. But this is not Russia.
Saudi Arabia - lives at the expense of oil and oil alone, Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, KSA is a breeding ground for Wahhabism and terrorism. but their no one insults, very respected and worthy people. Reliable partner. Someone called KSA "Wahhabi gas station"? But the way it is! And Qatar in Belarus none does not offend, moreover ...
For Russia, oil means less and less and less ... in a decreasing process. Why? It's simple: Russia did what neither Belarus nor Ukraine could do, and to carry out reforms. To bring the reforms of the state and the economy to a certain stage. But neither in Kiev nor in Minsk no one wants to admit it, categorically.
And what does the same “Belarusian economist” offer? And everything is simple and predictable: “Another way is to try to get on the development trajectory. There are quite a few examples of countries that have entered such a trajectory. And in conditions much worse than ours today. This - and Korea, and Taiwan, and Turkey, and China. "
No, of course, you can even dream of a "banana-lemon Singapore." Where few were from Belarusians and almost no one worked or lived. A respected economist cannot understand one thing (or is deliberately silent): both Korea, Taiwan, and China have risen due to external financial pumping and access to the American market. Or do you think people passed good laws, started working and everything turned out?
You just need to study their economics in detail, with numbers, facts, and data layout by year. To study, Carl, and not retell advertising brochures. Yes, even earn you, but if there is no funding and access to interesting markets, nothing will come of it. Labor in itself means little. I understand, I want to believe that "we will succeed in everything." Not a fact, most likely will not work.
And as we began to dream of “Singapore” in 80, they can’t stop at all. Far Eastern "tigers", Baltic torn cats ... All this nonsense. We must not “imagine”, but clearly understand the economic situation and our opportunities. Any experiments in this area are extremely costly for the people. The modern Belarusian position: “And we will try” - looks rather strange.
The economy, first of all, is intended not for interesting “experiments”, but for ensuring the minimum living standards of the broad masses (suddenly, yes?). Although of course, from a liberal point of view, the broad masses themselves are only a resource for that very economy. But from the point of view of a normal person, before doing something cardinal with the national economy, you need to ask yourself: what are we going to feed the people with?
The Belarusian economy, in fact, enjoyed all the advantages of being in the economic space of Russia - duty-free trade and cheap energy. At the same time, practically nothing is given in return, the “nipple system”. And how did it end? Economic collapse. And here we begin the experiment.
Quote further: “But for this ... a clear understanding of the goals, where we want to go, and super efforts are needed. South Korea undertook such super-efforts when modernization was carried out thanks to the political will of the government, tough decisions at the state level, to the extent that 40% of GDP was invested in the development of new technologies.
This is an investment. And as Sigmar Gabriel, head of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, said: "The level of investment is always a measure of how firmly a country believes in its future and how it is ready to solve problems." Alexander Obukhovich.
That is, the next splendid reasoning about a great investment is far away ... Frankly: any sensible journalist can “cosplay” Obukhovich and his ilk, endlessly and with kilometers to write articles about Singapore and Hong Kong and the correctness of the investment strategy. Dozens of kilometers. I personally met such nonsense about twenty years ago ... Do you want to live on what, gentlemen, are you?
Will you bow to Mr. Sigmar Gabriel, the head of the German Social Democrats? When the country's economy is already behind the brink of death, and leading economists argue about the need for some "investment", it becomes scary. If even now we start developing the Republic of Belarus according to the most magical scenario of South Korea, then hunger and cold cannot be avoided all the same: serious results will be in ten years. If they will.
But in order to realize the “Korean version” in Belarus, Mr. Gabriel must build dozens of modern factories in Belarus, and the EU must buy their products. Then maybe ... But why is this the EU, why is it Germany, and most importantly, why is Sigmar Gabriel? Everything is fine with them / there are enough problems without Belarus. Ukraine is completely under the control of the West, and there is fabulously cheap rabsila,but nobody builds plants. Amazing right? Build plants themselves and at their own expense? Already tried. It turned out badly with "expansion".
This, you know, is a purely Soviet approach: the main thing is to develop production, and sales are guaranteed. Under capitalism, they do not do that. Tomorrow the capitalist can unleash a lot of production, if someone guarantees his sales. So, at one time, during the very Crimean War (the war was Not only in the Crimea!) the same Nobel over-rich. And why? And the sale of its products was the Russian government guaranteed.
You see what the ficus is: at your own expense and in the free market you will be developing production for a very long time ... You could say infinitely long. After WWII, Europe and Asia were thoroughly destroyed, so, the Americans gave them a chance: technology, investment, orders. Clear, not for free, by no means. 100% political loyalty and subordination to American capital interests. And trying to repeat this miracle just like that, without having political support ... Well, this is insane.
So Poland and Romania tried to get onto the world market under socialism. They took, therefore, loans (in currency from Western banks), bought equipment (from Western suppliers for currency). They deployed, which means production in anticipation of Sberbarys and superdevelopment ... And the Westerners have to buy products from them (for currency!) And refused. Suddenly. And more interest rates on loans raised, which is typical (the contract must be read carefully!).
We have active fliers, something like this turned in 90-e, selling super-expensive fabrics for sneakers, for example, which then promised to buy at ultrahigh prices. The end is a bit predictable. Without a sucker and life is bad. If the rustling of money is heard, it means that the goof has gone to spawn ... By the way, for some reason this history has been little studied (not with slippers, of course). But when huge foreign currency loans hung on the country, the sad consequences of this were declared “the inefficiency of socialism”.
In general, all the arguments of the Belarusian economists are quite simple to understand: they proceed not so much from economics, but from politics. Popularity, hell, earn, very active. They say not what they really are, but what the Belarusians want to hear. The only trouble is that it has the most remote relation to the dull reality.
“The liberal ideas underlying the Russian“ development model of 2000's ”led to the fact that this“ model ”did not just exhaust itself. It simply failed, creating a strategic impasse for the development of the country. ” Alexander Obukhovich.
Reminds an old joke about a monkey with a banana peel and an overly curious crocodile:
- Well, you are a fool, monkey!
- Fool is not a fool, but I have fifty bucks a day!
It’s great, of course, that an economist from the fraternal Belarus gives a “tough and honest” assessment of the Russian model. The problem is what it is: fraternal Belarus has lived for the past two decades due to this model. And nobody told us thanks. That very “model of 2000's development” provided first of all the closure of the issue of the “second civil war in Russia”. If anyone does not remember, at the end of 90's the country was on the verge of such a war. Just do not here now smiling wickedly and waving his hand: the story, of course, has no subjunctive mood, but it is quite an alternative development.
And in spite of any sanctions, Russia after the “zero” is no longer the Russian 90. Have occurred Quality changes. What is the misunderstanding between us and Belarusians / Ukrainians. We went through the “post-job”, and they got stuck there. Neither Belarusians nor Ukrainians have a positive post-Soviet experience in economic development. Hence the difference in psychology and assessment of what is happening.
And neither Ukrainian nor Belarusian economists can admit that it was necessary not to show off with “European integration”, but to do reforms together with Russia. Today, the Russian economy has ensured the rearmament of the army, which Germany cannot allow itself (“why should it?”). And the same economy provided a year of high-tech war in Syria (something like that neither Japan nor Germany will pull in any way and even not pull together).
But talking about it is bad form. But the operation of the VKS in Syria (like the Olympics in Sochi) is a presentation of the possibilities of the new Russia. And the West noticed and noted (was forced) and the rest of the planet, too. Russia-2016 is a much more significant state in the international arena than Russia-2013. No one would have to conduct long negotiations with the country of the gas station.
Critical statements of Russian economists about the Russian economy are just normal for a free society. Free discussion and objective criticism are markers of a normal approach to solving problems (not only economic ones) and to government in general. To accept the statement of an individual economist (or even a group of such) as the ultimate truth is quite naive.
The position of the Belarusian economists is clear that, they say, Russia is still as bad (no better) with the economy, they just have “oil and gas”. Say, we have all the same. Alas, not all and not the same. In Russia (in contrast to Belarus and Ukraine), at the moment, there is no admiration for the Western model.
"In the US, 50 think tanks analyze and predict the future." Alexander Obukhovich.
Wonderful, just great. Well, they did not predict the growth of the US government debt to 20 trillions, these same think tanks, they think tank? Or was it absolutely uninteresting to them?
You understand what the trouble is: our Belarusian / Ukrainian colleagues rely on the Soviet / post-Soviet experience and yesterday / the day before yesterday’s Western propaganda when assessing the overall situation. They have no positive post-Soviet experience in economics and state-building. There is an experience of endless "telepany" in the post-Soviet swamp that some have, others have. At the same time, they piously believe that Russia is “teleping” with them in the same swamp. And they want (secretly) out of this taiga swamp. Here they are great.
Today, the difference in the standard of living between the neighboring regions of Russia and Ukraine is becoming quite indecent. And is it all oil? All gas? Is the Olympics in Sochi also oil and gas? And the operation in Syria? Is everything bought for petrodollars? Spaceport Free? Petrodollars? And why Saudi Arabia is not building space centers? And why did KSA in Yemen squeal? Petrodollars of the wrong system?
Army countries gas stations. Successful invasion
Guys, you check it out just in case: we are no longer with you “in one swamp”, something like that. Many economists need to understand one very simple thing: an economist and a political agitator are two very different professions. Absolutely nothing in common.
Purse with legs
Information