Military Review

Russian citizens are asked to remove from them the "hands of the market" and return Gosplan

86
Russian citizens are asked to remove from them the "hands of the market" and return Gosplan



The Higher School of Economics has published studies on the beginning of 2016, according to which 52% of Russians trust the economy with state planning, whereas before they were 49%, and the confidence in the market model for 2015 fell by 10%, from 36% to 26% . 80% of Russians are convinced that food prices should be set by the state, not the market, services should be state-owned, the state must build roads, provide jobs, build kindergartens, schools, clinics and perform other important functions affecting citizens.

Business citizens do not trust, considering the income of the owners unfair. 40% of respondents believe that it is impossible to achieve mutual understanding between the rich and the poor in Russia. And people do not see the attempts of business to solve social problems.

The less respondents are satisfied with their financial position and life in general, the lower their position on the scale of material well-being, the higher the nostalgia for the Soviet past and the less they trust in business. "During crisis periods, the number of supporters of the Soviet system is increasing," the HSE study, considered to be a "stronghold of liberals," affirms.

About what lessons of state planning we must endure and why we are increasingly recalling the Soviet era, in an interview on the eve.RU the writer, essayist, researcher told stories economic policy of Russia Andrei Parshev.

Question: How do you think the results of the HSE study reflect reality?

Andrey Parshev: The polls themselves should be treated with some doubt, because the methodology is not always disclosed, it is not reported how and who was interviewed. But perhaps the main problem in this area lies in the fact that we have so many people do not know exactly what the structure of our economy is, what the balance is between the state economy and the one based on private entrepreneurship. Quite often, some large companies are considered to be state-owned (for example, Gazprom), although the role of state participation in some companies is not always clear, and it is not clear whether it takes business decisions at all.

Often, many believe that we still live in a state economy. This is easy to check by familiarizing yourself with the structure of the economy and companies that are heard. This is one side of the issue. The other side of the question is that the state often interferes with the work of some private companies, and we can with great difficulty set up a clean experiment, compare what the results of the work of private enterprises and state-owned are.

But if we talk about the essence of the issue, that is the basic problem of our model of economy. The fact is that the privatization process itself in 90 proceeded on the basis of an idea that was inspired by the masses and accepted by society, that everything is done to make the economy efficient, while under state administration it was allegedly ineffective. As a result, the state economy was handed out in private hands, and without compensation, for obvious reasons - the new owners simply did not have the money to pay for the assets received.



It is not entirely clear why this began to manifest itself only now, but the fact that this model does not work was understandable literally during the first 10 years after the start of reforms. The system does not work! If we compare with successful economies, for example, Chinese or some other, then we will see that the Russian economy, namely the private sector, did not create anything significant. This is clearly seen just on the shelves of our stores, anyway - food or manufactured goods. Not to mention the markets. There are no products there.

And therefore, naturally, the question arises as to what to do next, because everyone understands that if no one works and does not produce anything, then, in fact, there is no place for wealth and well-being. You can't get rich just by selling Chinese goods to each other. In principle, this awareness exists, and I even think that an honest survey could show more than 52% for state planning, but sometimes this question is answered with something else in mind. For example, those who somehow settled in this new economy, in general, they understand that it may not end very well, but the changes frighten them.

Question: Still, if we talk about the study, what do Russians see as advantages of state planning, what do you think, and where could such a model of the economy be useful?

Andrey Parshev: The planning technique and the corresponding planning software are incredibly developed in successful economies. Moreover, it is not just developed, the corresponding planning software was limited for distribution to other countries. The planning process itself is the most important, and all developed countries are engaged in this. What can be the mechanisms for the implementation of plans in a market economy is a separate issue, but, for example, somewhere closer, somewhere further from the Soviet planning system was a model for the Japanese after the war, which gave impetus to development - everyone knows perfectly well. Planning is necessary, and planning in physical terms, and this is a very significant point.

Question: But we also have negative lessons from state planning?

Andrey Parshev: Here we must separate the real negative lessons from propaganda. In addition, I believe that there were some conscious or semi-conscious actions against the Soviet economy in order to discredit the model of government.

Question: What do you mean?

Andrey Parshev: It is worth starting a conversation on this topic in any team - a discussion about coupons, cards, etc. immediately begins, and no one says that this is generally a feature of the economy of Gorbachev’s times, not even Brezhnev, although there were certain drawbacks also.



And the propaganda directed against the state model of the economy was very pragmatic. Those who hoped to divide this state property had to introduce the idea that “it works very poorly”, therefore, it must be “distributed to private hands,” and then “it will work well”. It is not worth believing that the beneficiaries of the distribution of Soviet property talked about the shortcomings of state planning.

But there is one thing, and I must say, this is a very painful topic for our society, because a satisfactory solution has not yet been proposed. The problem is that tight control over prices in our planning system, pricing, retail prices (and you remember that the price was cast in meat grinders or combings right in the production process) automatically leads to a shortage problem - partial, for some types of goods , in some time periods, this is due to the fact that demand is difficult to plan, it sometimes migrates from different industries, in different areas, categories of goods, and in addition, it is necessary to very strictly control the purchasing method obnost population. This is a difficult task, it is both economic and political.



The political problem is related to what is responsible for the price. Who is to blame if prices have risen? Greedy capitalist. In the case of a state model, the state is to blame. This is not good for obvious reasons. This is the main problem of state planning and state control over the economy.

Question: Why, despite the stereotype that “under the State Planning Committee in the country it was bad and nothing was enough,” do people still look at that time with hope?

Andrey Parshev: But people are not fools and can compare. In general, the possibilities of any propaganda (and in this case we are talking about propaganda, that “everything was bad there”) are great, but not unlimited.



Question: That is, this reaction is not just in opposition to the current situation, but there are objective reasons for recalling positive Soviet times?

Andrei Parshev: Of course, these are objective reasons, and for a number of points. First of all, there are some factors disturbing people. Probably the first of them is unemployment, the scale of which is carefully disguised now, but in fact the situation is close to catastrophic. If we subtract the number of taxpayers from the number of able-bodied people, we will get a huge figure. They were softly called self-employed, but, as a rule, they are simply unemployed or interrupted by some kind of odd jobs. And in a situation where you need to have at least some kind of salary, it is no longer about getting rich or having your own business.

The second factor, perhaps less important, but also of importance, is, of course, the system of state standards for products, and it is always annoying and annoying when there is not real sausage, not real chocolate, and there is no normal bread to taste. and it smelled like bread - we all know that too.

Such things, of course, affect public sentiment. But so far, this does not manifest itself in the electoral field, because there is no any integral program of returning to the state model.

If now there was a political force that would say that we have an economic program, according to which there will be all the advantages of the Soviet economy, but there will be everything in the stores, then such a party would have won the elections with great success. But in a sense, our politicians are honest people, and so far there is no such program.

Question: Even if the HSE voices the results of the study “for the State Planning Commission,” will the liberals in power themselves hear these results and draw any conclusions?

Andrey Parshev: HSE - this is the economic bloc, they will probably hear, they all know it. The economic sections of the presidential address are prepared by people related to HSE. The situation is clear, the authorities finally began to ask economists what to do in this situation? But liberal economists, apart from the mantras about the invisible hand of the market, cannot say anything, but our economy has not come so far as science.



Question: In the study, the authors simply refer to the crisis, they say, it was he who caused more dissatisfaction of citizens with the market. And often in the media, a crisis is declared to be the result of influence on Russia from outside, but is it really who is to blame for the crisis?

Andrei Parshev: Our people understand the threatening actions of the West to our address and separate them from unfavorable economic conditions. And any of our citizens, regardless of the level of education, understands perfectly well that if we sell only oil and gas, and they have fallen in price three times, then we, of course, these three times have become poorer. The problem is that we have created just such a model of economy. As far as it is introduced to us from the outside and is a product of the activities of our managers, this is already a debatable issue, in any case, everyone understands that it is the economic model born in 90 that is the main cause of the current crisis.

In my opinion, simply the realization that the current model of the economy does not work, in society there may be, it was quite long ago in such a depressed form, but now it manifests itself even more, possibly due to the fact that the leaders of our state, they say that a new model is needed, propose to create alternative models for the development of our country.

Question: And which model would be acceptable?

Andrei Parshev: The fact is that for “capitalism” we call this system “capitalism”, an option was chosen that is not suitable for us, liberal capitalism. In our country, it can work, but provided that the model is protectionist, protected from competition from more developed economies, and it is this model that those who control our economy absolutely do not want to try. Perhaps, a protectionist model will be tried out, that is, high import duties on high-value-added products, difficulty or prohibition of the export of raw materials in order to stimulate their own processing of raw materials and the production of high-level products. And the state model of the economy is: Gosplan, Gossnab, OBKHSS. Let's see what will happen to us in the coming years.
Originator:
http://www.nakanune.ru/articles/113042/
86 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Victor N
    Victor N 6 July 2017 15: 20
    +7
    There have been no serious studies of the economic system of the USSR in recent decades. But the fact of the economic bankruptcy of the planned system cannot be circumvented. The reasoning of amateurs is appropriate in a limited space (bench).
    1. ava09
      ava09 6 July 2017 15: 56
      +27
      Quote: Victor N
      But the fact of the economic bankruptcy of the planned system cannot be circumvented

      There was no economic bankruptcy as a systemic crisis. This was acknowledged by A. Zinoviev when he was called by the “young reformers” from the USA, he thought he would support their betrayal of the Motherland (“reforms”). There was a degeneration of the "ruling class" - party nomenclature, with all the ensuing consequences.
    2. alekc73
      alekc73 6 July 2017 15: 57
      +28
      There was no economic bankruptcy. Look at China. There was a deliberate destruction of the Soviet model to transfer property into the right hands.
      1. ele1285
        ele1285 6 July 2017 16: 17
        +2
        Quote: alekc73
        There was no economic bankruptcy. Look at China. There was a deliberate destruction of the Soviet model to transfer property into the right hands.

        But what's the difference between a burning vegetable, bankruptcy, China, a planned or non-planned economy. It's just that a Russian citizen eats 35 kg of meat a year.
        What further discussion? 35 kg per YEAR. Counting chicken and sausage.
        1. AleksPol
          AleksPol 6 July 2017 22: 41
          +1
          nor h.ir.s.a ... I buy 10 kg every month. Apart from chicken and sausages.
        2. Nikolay K
          Nikolay K 6 July 2017 23: 50
          +1
          Look at China.

          In China, a capitalist economy with a strong public sector. By the number of billionaires, China is in second place after the United States.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 7 July 2017 19: 49
            0
            The public sector in China is constantly declining as soon as the next state-owned enterprise becomes unprofitable. The state keeps only profitable ones, which encourages directors of state enterprises to work normally so as not to lose their places.
        3. MaksoMelan
          MaksoMelan 7 July 2017 02: 13
          +2
          This is subject to the feed of the entire socialist camp. For free. All republics with rare exceptions were daotatsionnymi. And rejoicing after the war.
    3. urapatriot
      urapatriot 6 July 2017 16: 01
      +26
      The economic bankruptcy of the planned system occurred only in your imagination)). And here is the opinion of the amateur:
      HIROSHI TERAMACHI, founder of TNK Engineering Corporation (turnover of USD 2,5 billion in 2011), during a visit to Moscow in response to a speech by Russian colleagues praising the American accounting methodology.
      “For some reason you are not talking about the main thing, about your role as the discoverers of economic planning in the world. In 1939, you Russians were smart, and we Japanese were fools. In 1949, you became even smarter, and we were fools so far. And in 1955 we got smarter, and you turned into five-year-olds. The entire Japanese economic system is almost completely copied from the USSR, with the only difference being that we have capitalism, private producers, and we have never achieved more than 15% growth, while you, with public ownership of the means of production, reached 30% or more. In all our firms your slogans of the Soviet era hang ”
      http://maxpark.com/community/4788/content/3548204
      1. gladcu2
        gladcu2 6 July 2017 18: 55
        +3
        Here is such a model.

        I will explain the benefits of expensive loans, as well as the death of capitalism.
        At the heart of capitalism, what is? Answer: economic competition for material resources.
        What happens when the competition is unlimited? This is a liberal type of capitalism. So what will happen? There will be one rich, and all the rest will die out. There will be a redistribution of resources using the means of production. The solvency of the population will end. Society will perish. Systemic crisis.
        Wealth is the ability to subjugate oneself through the influence of money. Abundance is the availability of opportunities without the need to subordinate.
        How to kill capitalism evolutionarily? Answer: review antitrust laws.
        So you own the production. You have created a product that beats your competitors. What are your next steps? Buying your competitors. You are a monopolist. Next? Increase the price of your products? Your products will not be bought. Since you lose demand.
        So?
        You will begin production planning and cost of production so that your life form is optimal.
        Where is the competition? She died and capitalism died, as a form of pumping money from the pockets of the majority.
        Farther. You have become an industry monopolist. The key word is industry. The state takes control of you. Control is carried out as a form of distribution of orders between industries. Including with the help of loans. Which randomly become cheaper. Equally enough to balance the profitability of industries. The state governs the economy. Economics BECOMES SOCIALIST, planned.
        Another way. You are a monopolist. You invest in various industries and win in many positions. You become a super corporation that does not need state control. You are independent and you do not bear social responsibility. You take the path of increasing competition and the path of crime. What is happening in the USA. With US territory and with the help of the US population, super corporations are waging regional wars. Pay for the terror.
        The US has lost sovereignty.
        Now about cheap loans.
        Subject to the presence of a market, any cheap loan will develop into a financial debt bubble. And this will happen with the help of securities speculation. If there is cheap credit, speculators will win, since the turnover during speculation is faster than the development of production and society. Therefore, the cost of loans should be sky-high. So that the fate of the United States does not suffer you.
        And further.
        Russia shows success in the military-industrial complex. Why? Because it is an industry monopoly. Monopolies do not need to spend money on competition. They are busy with targeted projects.
        An example of a cheap home loan. This is the financial crisis of 2008, when credit became cheap, housing prices rose sharply. The population was not solvent. Banks took away housing. People went to live in tents. Who did win?
        Therefore, live and rejoice that you have a HIGH bank interest.
        Still capitalism would kill, without the redistribution of private property.
        I just drew you a model of a stable NOT IDEOLOGIZED STATE. Which should not perish as a result of the sale of power.
        1. Nikolay K
          Nikolay K 6 July 2017 23: 56
          +2
          What happens when the competition is unlimited? This is a liberal type of capitalism. So what will happen? There will be one rich, and all the rest will die out

          Stupidity is complete. In the animal world there is unlimited competition for resources, but show where some of the strongest survived, and the remaining individuals died out? Competition, on the contrary, smooths out the extremes of the system, not allowing monopolization to develop - the opposite concept, which just leads to one-sided distortions.
    4. yehat
      yehat 6 July 2017 16: 01
      +22
      How can a planned system go bankrupt if it is a mandatory part of any producing economy? Production on an industrial scale cannot be created without planning.
      The problems in the USSR were because they threw themselves to extremes — sometimes corn was grown beyond the Arctic Circle, then they ignored the diversification of goods, they replaced motivation with slogans, they organized disgusting logistics, they simply sawed the country without any economic sense, and on the other hand, the USSR was constantly in tension due to threats from the United States, Britain and NATO. All the gains from the effectiveness of a planned economy and even more went to maintaining the security of the state - from the army and supporting the Warsaw Pact to sponsoring "friends". If at least half of the funds from the Buran program and the second large (I don’t remember which one) was used to provide for the population, there would have been no problems at all - no one would have even thought that something was wrong with the economy. Almost everyone would have a gentleman's minimum available - salary, work, a full range of products, free housing in turn for 3-7 years, etc. .. But the USSR at some point could not cope. Ignoring simple things in economics always ends sadly. The USSR was destroyed by personnel policy - unprincipled people who were interested only in personal power and career came to leadership in many areas.
      1. Sharapov
        Sharapov 6 July 2017 19: 22
        +3
        Quote: yehat
        Production on an industrial scale cannot be created without planning.

        Mixed in a bunch - plans, capitalism, socialism. Slogans and porridge-malash.
        And the right approach is in a reasonable combination of the scale of state planning with the ability to adapt to the needs (demand) of the population. With a large scale of planning, the "stupid" annual (five-year) planning (as it was in the USSR) - you will end up with shelves clogged with one seaweed in stores (as we had in 1992).
        And if you try a small (medium) private trader in the plan to drive - he will send you much further than communism.
        1. gladcu2
          gladcu2 6 July 2017 20: 10
          +9
          Sharapov

          What you need and without you know. But you do not say how to do this.

          1992 was no longer an economy. And in 1980, life was reliable and confident. But you don’t know.
          1. Sharapov
            Sharapov 6 July 2017 21: 37
            +2
            Do not make people laugh.
            Quote: gladcu2
            And in 1980, life was reliable and confident.

            ????????????? In 1980, the USSR reliably and confidently squandered resources for export (while the oil price was high). 95% of the loans granted to the “BROTHER-PROLETARIAN countries” remained irrevocable, and the “brothers” eventually sent us in the woods. AGAIN SENT RELIABLE AND SURE.
            The article deals with the praise of global (Gosplan) economic planning. But we did it. is not it? It was planned that in 1992, less than 15% of the villages in central Russia were gasified with almost free gas, and even less beyond the Urals.
            1. yehat
              yehat 7 July 2017 18: 48
              +1
              Gosplan and planning in the 80s has nothing to do with the planned five-year economy. It is enough to look at the humorous crocodile magazines in those years to understand this. The problems started because they left the proven mechanism in a swamp.
          2. MrK
            MrK 6 July 2017 23: 19
            +8
            Quote: gladcu2
            1992 was no longer an economy. And in 1980, life was reliable and confident. But you don’t know.


            I agree. I want to say a few words from my childhood scared.

            “... STATE PLANNING does not at all mean a transition to socialism. This is just the development of the rules of the game and the definition of goals. This is the coordination of all the components of economic policy, which will replace the current order, when people who pursue only their own selfish interests, try to collect in the dark room something whole from disparate pieces ...
            We cannot make progress until we abandon the ridiculous idea that planning at the national level is an attack on the capitalist system. Because of these fears, we remained the only developed country in the world without industrial policy ... ”said Lido Anthony, a living legend, a successful Ford manager, who then managed to pull the doomed Chrysler out of nonexistence back in 1984. This is the first.

            The second one. In the 11 Five-Year Plan (1980-1985), industrial output grew by 20%, agricultural output - by 11%. The growth rate of national income decreased from 7,7% in 1970 years to 3,4%. But still, it was GROWTH, not a fall, as it is today. And percentages were calculated from gigantic indicators - 2 trillion. dollars. And in 1985 there were no empty shelves in stores.
            They appeared later in 1990, when the socialist economy was completely broken.
            The third. From the article. ... The author should never forget how a certain KGB officer in winter 1989 invited him to go with him for meat for dogs ... Kilometers for 30 from the city. When both came to the place, a terrible picture appeared before my eyes: a ravine littered with killed two-year-old bull-calves. To the author’s question, where did so many bulls come from and why were they all slammed, the partner, with a sigh, answered that something terrible was happening in the country. Incomprehensible. And the bulls are all healthy, they were taken to a meat factory, but they were in a ravine. We sawed one back bull with a hand saw. And went to the city. “From what I observe, my hair stands on end,” the KGB officer told me goodbye. “Someone at the very top went crazy.”
            And the "democratic" media broadcast both on the radio and on television screens that the Soviet economy could not stand the competition with the economic machine of the West. And the average man, not understanding what was really going on, swallowed everything.
            1. yehat
              yehat 7 July 2017 18: 59
              +2
              Yes, it was just such a feeling. Periodically stumbled upon logically indescribable events. Insanity was sometimes such that the eyes could not believe it.
              I saw a half-kilometer-long barn that was built and abandoned.
              I saw in droves the necessary undertakings that simply stood, 90% complete and not ready wasted. A huge amount of irresponsible squandering of property, along with the prohibitions to spend a fraction of this on your needs. Millions of rubles, people in senior posts could effortlessly send to the toilet simply because they would not be put to the wall for that. And this, along with real miracles in economics and science. From such a discord it was possible to go astray. Is planning to blame for what happened?
        2. yehat
          yehat 7 July 2017 09: 25
          +4
          you interfere with cause, effect and facts that are not related to each other. Shelves of seaweed were formed due to Gorbachev's policies. This was not for many years under Brezhnev. And it began when Khrushchev began to struggle very stubbornly with the legacy of Stalinism - he canceled artels and other diversification mechanisms that supplemented the plans of the five-year plan and the state plan. You’d better study what the planned five-year economy in the USSR is, because, obviously, you don’t even understand what you’re talking about.
          1. Sharapov
            Sharapov 7 July 2017 18: 17
            0
            Quote: yehat
            Gorbachev’s policies. This was not for many years under Brezhnev. And it began when Khrushchev began to fight very clumsy with the legacy of Stalinism -

            It's funny to read it.
            Immediately before the eyes of the leaders of the USSR stood up, planning economic development, not sleeping at night, not allowing anyone to plan.
            After all, the child understands that plannedness - (as the basis of the social economy) was ABSOLUTELY independent of the ruler. The maximum that he planned was to build plants for free and who we would feed for free - Cuba or Angola. Some of them were fond of virgin soil, someone BAM, someone introduced missiles instead of aircraft, someone the other way around. Someone plunged into Afghanistan, while someone tried to accelerate and rebuild. And your "successes of planned economy" by the Uzbek "cotton business" alone are completely crossed out. And this is just the tip of the iceberg ..
            The result of all this is the collapse of the country. And it collapsed under socialism!
            1. yehat
              yehat 7 July 2017 19: 03
              +1
              you don’t understand what you are carrying. Learn the materiel. Learn the story. Learn at least real events in CMEA. They dragged a couple of completely left-wing examples, made incorrect global conclusions on them. So it is not done. You don’t even understand how much money Cuba saved for the USSR on one Caribbean crisis.
        3. Shadow of darkness
          Shadow of darkness 7 July 2017 11: 56
          0
          get in the end the shelves clogged with one seaweed in stores (as we had in 1992)

          In the 92nd was the planned economy? what In fact, with the advent of Gorbachev, the decline of the planned economy began, and with the advent of Yeltsin, the construction of a "liberal market" began.
      2. Nikolay K
        Nikolay K 7 July 2017 00: 00
        +4
        Almost everyone would have access to a gentlemanly minimum - salary, work, a full range of products, free housing in turn for 3-7 years, etc.

        Tales do not tell. Many apartments have been waiting for decades. For years they saved money on a Romanian wall or TV, saved up for a car for ten years, dreamed of jeans and sneakers, and stood in line for hours for vodka and sausage.
        1. yehat
          yehat 7 July 2017 09: 38
          +3
          you do not tell tales. "saved up for years" ... who saved up?
          The family of normal workers earned at least 350 rubles a month (for 80 years).
          A family of engineers or workers with high ranks could earn 600-700 each. In such families it was EASY to save 150-200 rubles each month. And how much did it all cost? The new TV is about 700r, a woman's coat is about 100-110r, the sports one was great 125, my family bought a Polish wall. They didn’t tell me the price, but I remember that they didn’t save up on it at all - it was enough to buy the rest on the book, and they saved up on Taurus TV for 3 months.
          The most expensive was a car - Lada 08. It was saved for 3 years.
          1. Nikolay K
            Nikolay K 7 July 2017 17: 03
            +1
            The Romanian wall on the black market cost from three thousand rubles. Buying it without a damn was not real. Putting aside a quarter of the salary (according to 100 p) per month is the minimum of 2,5 of the year
            1. yehat
              yehat 7 July 2017 17: 11
              +1
              do not confuse the black market and ordinary needs. In addition to the Romanian wall, there were other options. I can’t say that they are simple - during my childhood there were already wide thieves' networks in trade, which distorted the normal supply.
              But I remember that on the occasion there were quite a few options to solve my everyday problems even in a remote Siberian town, where I lived.
              The same wall and no worse quality could be ordered 100 meters from my house - in a furniture workshop they could make a copy of your size and with your additions and it would cost 10-15 times less than 3000r.
  2. Flinky
    Flinky 6 July 2017 15: 21
    +17
    I am for Gosplan.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 6 July 2017 16: 42
      0
      Quote: Flinky
      I am for Gosplan.

      There is a plan both under socialism and under capitalism, but the ways to achieve the goal of the plan are different. The approval by the parliaments of the budget of the countries that there, what's there, is nothing more than planning for the development or closure of a particular industry, production, etc. those. Gosplan. So what are YOU for?
      1. Flinky
        Flinky 6 July 2017 17: 50
        +8
        The approval by the parliaments of the budget of the countries that there is nothing there other than planning for the development or closure of a particular industry, production, etc. those. Gosplan

        Excuse me, you are carrying game. And I am for the State Planning Commission. That is, for strategic planning in all sectors of the economy. And it must be state-owned.
        1. Boris55
          Boris55 7 July 2017 08: 57
          0
          Quote: Flinky
          And I am for the State Planning Commission. That is, for strategic planning in all sectors of the economy. And it must be state-owned.

          And what do you think the government is doing in the country's milestone budget? laughing
          1. Flinky
            Flinky 7 July 2017 09: 49
            +2
            Whose government is it? Ours - for the most part casts spells. Because the expected revenues to the budget do not coincide with reality.
            The strategic plan involves a clear statement of goals for a period (for example, the next five years), and no less clear phased implementation. What is the purpose of the budget, besides its implementation? Income, taxes, fees, duties, excise taxes - for three years, so much. Defense and social spending - so much. The budget does not specify the measures that should lead to its implementation. Strategic plan - specifies.
            I'm afraid to ask, what do you know about planning?
            1. Boris55
              Boris55 7 July 2017 10: 51
              0
              Quote: Flinky
              Ours - for the most part casts spells. Because the expected revenues to the budget do not coincide with reality.

              This year, budget revenues significantly exceeded government expectations. Medvedev scratches turnips, does not know what to do with these.
              Quote: Flinky
              A strategic plan involves clearly formulating goals for a period ...

              Do you think the government, or those who control it, have no plan? If it is not made public, as in socialism, this does not mean that it is not.
              Quote: Flinky
              I'm afraid to ask, what do you know about planning?

              I do not have an economic education. I can only speak at the amateur level.
              Under socialism, the state itself printed how much, how much money the economy needed, distributed it among producers and set tasks, how much to let out.
              Under capitalism, the state does not have a printing press, money has to be earned and it is sent, on a competitive basis, to those sectors of private production that are engaged in the production of certain products necessary for the state.
              Russia has 20% of the world's natural resources. Our ruble is the most well-off in the world. Everything else "misunderstanding" is politics. The madness of many, for the welfare of the individual. For the most part, people talking about the state plan, talk about his article on social protection ...
  3. sds87
    sds87 6 July 2017 15: 46
    +13
    Andrey Parshev: ... And the state model of the economy is: Gosplan, Gossnab, OBHSS. Let's see what will happen in the coming years.

    If the market economy continues to steer the country, then the future of the country is in a deep ravine, because when there are more than one driver and a bunch of shopkeepers at the wheel, then management is easy to lose. The country is already burning tires in a drift, trying to stay in the lane. Continues to ride in the same vein - not to avoid the accident.
    1. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter 6 July 2017 18: 06
      +8
      Quote: sds87
      If the market economy continues to steer the country, then the future of the country in a deep ravine

      We have no market economy. Are domestic gas prices, for example, market prices? What about gas?
      It is clear that if the government still devalues ​​the ruble, then in the dollar equivalent, prices will be lower than Western ones. And if we take the ratio of real z.p. to the prices? So the standard of living of the population of the Russian Federation.
      1. sds87
        sds87 6 July 2017 21: 43
        +5
        Quote: Stroporez
        We have no market economy. Are domestic gas prices, for example, market prices? What about gas?

        Do you have the opportunity to buy gas from different sellers? No. Gazprom is a monopolist. There is no market in this. But gasoline at the prices still varies a bit among different sellers as well as its quality. But all prices are agreed upon between these comrades. No one is trying to dump. Take the prices of food, housing, clothes - everyone sells as he wants. In network stores near roads, prices are significantly higher than in the same stores in the yards. The rental price has nothing to do with it. It is simply believed that hurrying drivers will pay little attention to prices. The whole economy - buy cheaper, sell more expensive. If the cost price is expensive - reduce the cost of it due to low-quality sources. And there will be nothing for you for rotten furniture made of cheap glue and sawdust. For milk from palm oil and for sausage from tendons and soy. Make capital in any way. People’s health sideways.
        1. Sling cutter
          Sling cutter 6 July 2017 22: 39
          +4
          Quote: sds87
          But all prices are agreed upon between these comrades.

          Yes sir! all prices are agreed, otherwise your gas station will not last more than a week.
          As for the small stalls, it’s the backbones, they weren’t particularly touched until the networkers developed, there are not a single stall near them in the radius of a couple of meters.
          It is possible to transfer for a long time and all transfers will not be in favor of the authorities, the vertical of which is corruption, exclusively on which everything rests.
          Exclude her and everything will fall apart within a month.
    2. yehat
      yehat 7 July 2017 17: 33
      +1
      the author of the article is not right in that he truncatedly understands the planned economy.
      In the form in which it was in the USSR, we must not forget about the personnel policy and the notorious role of the party in motivation and other things. One could not be without the other.
      Now a completely different economy, other motivators, other methods and other personnel.
      Gosplan, gossnab and other structures cannot be created without changing much more.
      And, most importantly, the human factor. Until there is a filter and a selection system for people who work for everyone, and not just for themselves, any, even the most beautiful system will work poorly.
      Stalin, relying on the party and ideology, knew how to regulate this. And who can handle it now?
  4. AA17
    AA17 6 July 2017 15: 51
    +18
    Whether our effective managers will be able to draw up a plan for the development of the Russian economy is a big question. I would like to provide excerpts from one article. Then everyone will make their own conclusion - whether our "managers" are able to solve such issues.
    Oleg Kizim: "... What is the difference between an economic program and the pseudo-economic nonsense that has fed us fairly well over the last quarter century? An economic program cannot be abstract, divorced from the nuances and specifics of each individual country. That is why it is impossible to automatically tighten, for example, the American economic program on Russian realities; the reverse is also true.
    An economic program is essentially a directive plan with the rights of bylaws or even legal acts, consisting of tasks being implemented with clear guidelines, performance criteria and output parameters. At the same time, a circle of responsible persons is outlined both by the organizers and by the performers. Accordingly, for each specific goal, it is necessary to calculate the sources of financing, material and infrastructural sufficiency, the availability of technologies that ensure the implementation of the plan and the composition of the personnel reserve. ... When people talk about “developing industry and increasing its competitiveness, modernizing the technological base, building capacity”, etc., one can no longer listen. This is said on the machine when there is nothing to say. These are too abstract phrases applicable to any country at any time, even to Zimbabwe right now.
     The sane approach should be as follows. Take for example the mechanical engineering sector with the sub-sector “construction equipment manufacturing”.
    Initially, an analysis is made of the entire world market for the production of such equipment. The history of development, the technologies used, science and capital intensity, financial indicators of companies operating in this segment. Of these, formalized criteria of efficiency and competitiveness.
    At the second stage, an analysis is made of Russia's place in the segment of “production of construction equipment”. Market share, product range, technological comparison. From this, the degree of lagging behind world leaders is subsequently determined.
    At the third stage, benchmarks are formed. What intermediate and output parameters need to be achieved in order to occupy a certain market share by a specific date, compensating for the technological lag? A summary of the necessary financial, material, scientific and technical resources and personnel reserves is being made. Given the complexity of the products and the entire set of necessary components and intermediate products - roughly speaking, where will we get components from and how and on what will we produce all this?
    In the fourth step, a summary of the required resources is compared with the current resources. After that, a range of tasks is formalized, the achievement and implementation of which will bridge the gap between the cash and the necessary.
    At the fifth stage, a circle of responsible persons is formed on the part of the organizers and performers, and without exception, a measure of responsibility is determined.
    At the sixth stage, a system of operational control over the implementation of the plan is created with unconditional punishment for those who deviate from the established list of tasks. A control system for the quality of execution and adjustment of intermediate and output parameters in accordance with economic and political realities are also being created.
    The five-year plans worked in a similar way during the time of Stalin, where each economic program had a policy outline with sane criteria ... "
    1. pussamussa
      pussamussa 6 July 2017 15: 59
      0
      Great, you have set out everything. You can recommend you in the leadership of the future Gosplan.
      1. sds87
        sds87 6 July 2017 16: 26
        +10
        Quote: pussamussa
        Great, you have set out everything. You can recommend you in the leadership of the future Gosplan.

        The author is indicated: Oleg Kizim. AA17 only publishes. And thanks to him for that.
        According to Kizima, there are smart people in our country. Only in governing the country there is no move. This is the main problem of Russia. Not smart and able, but “their own” make their way into the management and put it - even if they are just former sellers of flowers and Chinese consumer goods.
    2. free
      free 6 July 2017 16: 58
      +1
      Quote: AA17
      Whether our effective managers will be able to draw up a plan for the development of the Russian economy is a big question. I would like to provide excerpts from one article. Then everyone will make their own conclusion - whether our "managers" are able to solve such issues.
      Oleg Kizim: "... What is the difference between an economic program and the pseudo-economic nonsense that has fed us fairly well over the last quarter century? An economic program cannot be abstract, divorced from the nuances and specifics of each individual country. That is why it is impossible to automatically tighten, for example, the American economic program on Russian realities; the reverse is also true.
      An economic program is essentially a directive plan with the rights of bylaws or even legal acts, consisting of tasks being implemented with clear guidelines, performance criteria and output parameters. At the same time, a circle of responsible persons is outlined both by the organizers and by the performers. Accordingly, for each specific goal, it is necessary to calculate the sources of financing, material and infrastructural sufficiency, the availability of technologies that ensure the implementation of the plan and the composition of the personnel reserve. ... When people talk about “developing industry and increasing its competitiveness, modernizing the technological base, building capacity”, etc., one can no longer listen. This is said on the machine when there is nothing to say. These are too abstract phrases applicable to any country at any time, even to Zimbabwe right now.
       The sane approach should be as follows. Take for example the mechanical engineering sector with the sub-sector “construction equipment manufacturing”.
      Initially, an analysis is made of the entire world market for the production of such equipment. The history of development, the technologies used, science and capital intensity, financial indicators of companies operating in this segment. Of these, formalized criteria of efficiency and competitiveness.
      At the second stage, an analysis is made of Russia's place in the segment of “production of construction equipment”. Market share, product range, technological comparison. From this, the degree of lagging behind world leaders is subsequently determined.
      At the third stage, benchmarks are formed. What intermediate and output parameters need to be achieved in order to occupy a certain market share by a specific date, compensating for the technological lag? A summary of the necessary financial, material, scientific and technical resources and personnel reserves is being made. Given the complexity of the products and the entire set of necessary components and intermediate products - roughly speaking, where will we get components from and how and on what will we produce all this?
      In the fourth step, a summary of the required resources is compared with the current resources. After that, a range of tasks is formalized, the achievement and implementation of which will bridge the gap between the cash and the necessary.
      At the fifth stage, a circle of responsible persons is formed on the part of the organizers and performers, and without exception, a measure of responsibility is determined.
      At the sixth stage, a system of operational control over the implementation of the plan is created with unconditional punishment for those who deviate from the established list of tasks. A control system for the quality of execution and adjustment of intermediate and output parameters in accordance with economic and political realities are also being created.
      The five-year plans worked in a similar way during the time of Stalin, where each economic program had a policy outline with sane criteria ... "


      applaud while standing hi
    3. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter 6 July 2017 18: 08
      +2
      Quote: AA17
      These are too abstract phrases applicable to any country at any time, even to Zimbabwe right now.

    4. yehat
      yehat 7 July 2017 17: 37
      0
      you can be accused of propaganda of totalitarianism :) I recognize the Soviet style ... if you go, then directly and without stopping, regardless of the bumps. Die, but do and all that ... We were proud of it, but poorly understood the price we are giving.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. free
    free 6 July 2017 16: 51
    +15
    Article to the point! If you want a market, create conditions, loans at low interest rates and for a long period, introduce protectionism and tax breaks, get such growth that you are pumping (we have a lot of sensible people) because there are no such conditions!Because we do not have a market and initially they were not going to build it! we have a system of plundering its country and the young reformers planned it! At our top, traitors and enemies of the people neither give the market a plan to return!
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 6 July 2017 16: 57
      0
      Quote: free
      her and planned young reformers

      So all the same, according to plan? laughing
    2. gladcu2
      gladcu2 6 July 2017 20: 38
      +1
      If there is speculation and commerce, then there is a market. When the Soviet Union planted it.
      Cheap credit raises the financial crisis.
      The builder of the market.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 6 July 2017 21: 09
      0
      “Loans at low interest rates and for a long term” - All loans will be grabbed, but they will not be able to repay and the state will again have to pump huge amounts of money into banks. At the moment, debt on loans in Russia is 15 trillion rubles.
  7. Boris55
    Boris55 6 July 2017 17: 11
    +2
    Russian citizens are asked to remove from them the "hands of the market" and return Gosplan

    The question is not posed correctly. There is a plan both under capitalism and socialism. Citizens demand that the goals of the plan be changed: from the task of building a paradise for the individual, to building a paradise for everyone.
    1. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter 6 July 2017 18: 11
      +9
      Quote: Boris55
      . Citizens demand that the goals of the plan be changed: from the task of building a paradise for the individual, to the building of a paradise for everyone.

      Those who redistributed the country's income in their favor, believe that there will not be enough for everyone.
      In general, the state always stands in the service of the victorious class, all the rest are outcasts.
  8. Kenxnumx
    Kenxnumx 6 July 2017 17: 31
    +3
    Missed the queues
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 6 July 2017 17: 44
      +8
      Quote: Ken71
      Missed the queues

      By these? laughing


      How many crises were in the USSR and the USA?
      1. Kenxnumx
        Kenxnumx 6 July 2017 18: 08
        +3
        I don’t know how about these, but I insisted on advice
        1. Shadow of darkness
          Shadow of darkness 7 July 2017 12: 34
          +3
          In a world where everything belongs to a minority, there are no queues in stores, there are only queues for pottage for homeless people. What if we are now paying for natural resources for the lack of queues? We produce a little ourselves!
      2. CorvusCoraks
        CorvusCoraks 6 July 2017 19: 56
        +1
        https://yandex.ru/images/search?text=очереди%20сс
        avg% 20photo & noreask = 1 & lr = 66
        http://diletant.media/articles/26222846/
  9. Kenxnumx
    Kenxnumx 6 July 2017 17: 35
    +1
    It’s like in an old joke. When in a parade for troops are people in gray suits with briefcases. And the question is who it is. This state plan is our most destructive weapon.
    1. B-15
      B-15 6 July 2017 18: 37
      +8
      Anecdote with a choke. Do not find?
      It’s just that even in the State Planning Commission, not everyone was happy for the state. Decomposition affected all the structures of the USSR.
      The secretness and skopidomstvo of the Soviet nomenclature led to our troubles.
      It was not in vain that they demanded complete transparency for managers.
      1. Kenxnumx
        Kenxnumx 6 July 2017 21: 03
        0
        Your answer showed the absolute veracity of anek
      2. Nikolay K
        Nikolay K 7 July 2017 00: 12
        +3
        It’s just that even in Gosplan not everyone was happy for the state

        True? What are you saying! And why so, maybe the wrong people were picked up? Maybe Stalin was not on them?
        About how many times they told the world. . . Well, a system built on non-existent laws does not work, no matter how beautiful it looks. A person thinks, first of all, about his OWN interest, and then about public ones. Man is not an ant who will die without hesitation at the behest of nature. If people would be like that, they would become big ants: efficient, social, but stupid and limited. And we are people, and I want us to remain people.
  10. Gardamir
    Gardamir 6 July 2017 18: 08
    +7
    Remind who said that there will be no return to the past. And doomed Russia to market liberalism.
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 6 July 2017 22: 53
      0
      And what's wrong, about a return to the past? Yes, he will not be. As it was never at all, it is simply impossible under any circumstances. All that may appear in the future will be different.
      USSR 2.0 is not the USSR.
      1. Gardamir
        Gardamir 7 July 2017 08: 08
        +3
        You see a person who is against a return to the past. He not only does not want the USSR, nor 2.0. He is generally against social justice.
  11. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 6 July 2017 18: 40
    +8
    “If there was a political force now that would say that we have an economic program, according to which there will be all the advantages of the Soviet economy, but there will be everything in the shops, then such a party would have won the election with deafening success.”
    Without a doubt.
    “... the fact that this model does not work, it was clear literally within the first 10 years after the start of the reforms. The system does not work! If we compare with successful economies, for example, Chinese or some other, we will see that the Russian the economy, namely the private sector, hasn’t created anything meaningful. "
    There is no reason to disagree.
    What disgusting faces in the photo! ..
  12. Goodmen
    Goodmen 6 July 2017 18: 47
    +12
    Let's see what will happen in the coming years.

    Nothing will happen. So there will be talk.
    In order for something to be, you need a professional team. There are no such authorities now. Those who are at the helm do not need this team, because they will have to share money, power and other things. And the risk of disappearing from the political Olympus is great. Why will they endure mediocrity?
    So that only a change of power can give an impetus to replace the model of the economy. In this, too, everything is not ice, because there are no political forces (patriotically inclined) that we can, and not only want, to do. The author mentioned this ...
    And such conditions were created quite consciously. Including that would feed us and poison.
    Sad but true.
  13. Brother Fox
    Brother Fox 6 July 2017 19: 55
    +2
    But in a sense, our politicians are honest people, and so far there is no such program. [I] [/ i]
    Honest politicians are nonsense! "No program!" There is a program, but not in favor of millionaires. How much more time is needed to learn something other than lies?
  14. nikvic46
    nikvic46 6 July 2017 20: 19
    +5
    The USSR State Planning Commission became the "victim" of the bureaucracy of the entire Soviet system. Reached insanity, Gosplan rewarded Vneshtorg for an increase in the purchase of feed wheat from the United States. When Gorbachev arrived, it all started as in the Bible first
    was the word. And Glasnost became our priority. Technological disasters such as the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, accidents at sea, and railroads began to appear. Disciplines have fallen in production. That is, verbiage has poured in the country.
    And so it continues to this day. The word has lost its meaning. But in what they succeeded, so much in the development of a cunning bureaucracy.
  15. nikvic46
    nikvic46 6 July 2017 20: 39
    +2
    There is no economic system. If, under normal conditions, the state machine first drives along
    the way. And economists are working on what place business will occupy, what place is reserved for the state
    enterprises, small businesses. Preserving the power of the army should have been in the first place. Now many say that in
    In the nineties, we were weak in military power. And they do not recognize that the so-called business looted the army. Everything was launched
    for sale, ranging from weapons to secret technologies.
  16. MaksoMelan
    MaksoMelan 7 July 2017 02: 16
    +2
    It would be so much if Chubais does not fit into the market and go out of business by the end of his life, it will go bankrupt. There will be a penny of money bases. Well, still somewhere on Sakhalin without electricity, which can only be reached by helicopter for rabid grandmothers whom he will not have.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 7 July 2017 03: 57
      +8
      I do not need this red mug on Sakhalin in FIG! stop
  17. thanatos49
    thanatos49 7 July 2017 03: 39
    0
    Quote: Mestny
    USSR 2.0 is not the USSR.

    Yeah, and fall apart not after 70 years, but after 35 ...
  18. thanatos49
    thanatos49 7 July 2017 03: 42
    +2
    Quote: Boris55
    How many crises were in the USSR and the USA?

    And where did the USSR end up? What about the USA?
  19. tasha
    tasha 7 July 2017 06: 26
    +1
    The most important thing was said by A. Parshev in his answers
    Often, many believe that we still live in a state economy. This is easy to check by familiarizing yourself with the structure of the economy and companies that are heard. This is one side of the issue. The other side of the question is that the state often interferes with the work of some private companies, and we can with great difficulty set up a clean experiment, compare what the results of the work of private enterprises and state-owned are.


    But, of course, a little disingenuous. If in the first part of the answer he says: “it is easy to verify”, then in the second he uses streamlined formulations of “really, often, some”. Any more or less large company, regardless of the type of activity, is somehow connected with officials. Small business is handled by local small-scale officials, who are interested in this same small business only as an object of statistics and reporting on detected violations. No one will develop it, except for the owners themselves.

    What is capitalism like in Russia?
  20. Shurale
    Shurale 7 July 2017 06: 50
    +3
    One fact is that in a planned economy, the billions that our dear liberals donated to our geopolitical enemy (and the fact that this is an axiom for free, look at the result of attempts by the Japanese to return their money from the Americans after Fukushima) would be at our disposal, and for such an amount it’s really possible to ward off a new country starting from roads and ending with houses, kindergartens and shops. I think no one has any doubt that a planned economy is more effective. Even Margaret Thatcher talked about this, but our liberals selectively consider the views of our Western partners.
    1. Victor N
      Victor N 7 July 2017 08: 43
      0
      Yes, there could be doubts about the effectiveness of a planned economy!
  21. tasha
    tasha 7 July 2017 07: 14
    +2
    Something is wrong with this article.

    80% of Russians are convinced .... that the state should build roads, provide work, build kindergartens, schools, clinics and perform other important functions affecting the interests of citizens


    Why not 100%?
    1. Victor N
      Victor N 7 July 2017 08: 45
      0
      You can’t bring ALL to the state - it won’t pull!
      1. tasha
        tasha 7 July 2017 08: 57
        +2
        There is no question about EVERYTHING. But kindergartens, schools, clinics and roads - this is exactly the state ...
  22. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 7 July 2017 08: 31
    +5
    Riding a bike without a steering wheel is awesome! But it is very possible to eat ... downhill.
    The USSR was a car, which was driven by groups of party-makers and it’s clear that this car found its pillar at the side of the road.
    Economic development is the same movement, and all Western economic doctrines about the self-regulation of the economy are utter nonsense, created for one purpose only - to steal and appropriate, on which the US economy actually rests.
    Once again: liberalism is the essence of anarchy, and in no way does it imply a purposeful movement. There will be a clear course - where we are going, there will be a reliable engine - balanced domestic production, there will be a driver holding the steering wheel firmly - only then we will move towards a brighter future, and not pray like passengers in the "jamshutka".
  23. Nikolay Vozisov
    Nikolay Vozisov 7 July 2017 14: 26
    +2
    When we get rid of the legacy of Soros, this strangler of the Russian economy at the Higher School of Economics. To the point of enduring the oppression of Russian economists intoxicated by the Anglo-Saxon theory of the liberal market. It's time to drive the filthy broomstick of economists selling the economy of the Russian Federation under the crafty rules of the IMF led by the United States. There is nothing to fear from isolation. We are the only self-sufficient multinational and multiconfessional country in the world. We have all kinds of minerals. We have bright heads in all branches of physics. If we disperse the currently useless RAS and create a new one, we ourselves will be able to create an economy of a new mode based on broadcasting and digital technologies unknown to the world.
  24. Altona
    Altona 7 July 2017 16: 30
    0
    Quote: Victor N
    But the fact of the economic bankruptcy of the planned system cannot be circumvented.

    -------------------------------
    I will not argue with your words. Just call them extremely stupid and amateurish. How can you build a large object without planning? And even more so, how can you build a rocket without planning? And from scratch. Try it, then scatter the words "about the bankruptcy of the planned system."

    PS A classic example of network planning in the production of the Polaris rocket:

    Network planning - This is a graphical representation of the work plan, reflecting their logical sequence, their relationship and duration.

    Network planning and control methods are based on graph theory and probability theory.

    Using network methods provides the identification and elimination of particularly stressful areas, allows for planned forecasting and analysis of the progress of work.

    Network methods contribute to the optimization of planning and, in the first place, to reducing the time needed to complete the whole complex of works and the costs of its implementation.

    Abroad, network methods were initially known as PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique), a program review and evaluation technique.

    The PERT method was developed in 1958 in the USA and was first used in the design and manufacture of the Polaris rocket. There are two varieties of the PERT method:

    PERT-Time - the model is optimized for time;

    PERT-Cost - cost optimization.
  25. Altona
    Altona 7 July 2017 16: 36
    +2
    Quote: gladcu2
    Capitalism, as a form of pumping money from the pockets of the majority.

    -----------------------------
    Capitalism can live only in two cases: the first is either accumulating debts, the second is either robbing peripherals and colonies. There is no other way. If you have the opportunity to rob someone, then of course you will live richer. The USSR itself was a donor to many states, so think. And the US is a financial parasite. As well as Germany, and Japan and other "developed" economies.
  26. iouris
    iouris 7 July 2017 20: 53
    +1
    The market kills inefficient economies. In a country with a population of less than 250 million people, the market will not be able to form. Moreover, economically stronger "partners" are waging war against it. The choice is small: to give up or form a new country with a population of at least 300-500 million people. The reason for the refusal of state planning is tearing the USSR into pockets. This unprecedented crime could end with the destruction of the population.
  27. Old warrior
    Old warrior 7 July 2017 22: 45
    +1
    Not even funny. I don’t know how it is throughout the country, but at many enterprises and organizations people are starting to get furious because of the incompetent competence of moron chiefs imposed by no one knows whom. It is possible that all this bastard will soon begin to be beaten and possibly kicked.
  28. Appraiser
    Appraiser 8 July 2017 22: 46
    0
    As such, the market (market relations) does not exist .. I have been dealing with this problem for almost 15 years. You can write a lot about this for a long time, there is only a “cartel” conspiracy of market participants (both domestic and world). This example is the WTO, so without the gosplan of our economy we cannot reach the desired level. wink
  29. andrew xnumx
    andrew xnumx 8 July 2017 23: 15
    0
    Andrei Parshev is in many ways right. But we need a sharp increase in the regulatory role of the state. When will we finally understand that any ideas of liberal economists pose a threat to our state and society! Urgent need to turn to the mobilization path of development. Industry is almost not developing, and we need not only revival, but also the construction of new enterprises. The country needs Gosplan.
    1. unknown
      unknown 10 July 2017 09: 04
      0
      Modern Western studies have convincingly proven that the effectiveness of the enterprise does not depend on the form of ownership.
      There is no free competition in the West. And there is planning, although not brought to the point of absurdity.
      There is no effective large capital in Russia. Effective for society. All of the major Russian capitalists are “bookmasters” who have received property in nominal ownership, as the Pound Vice-Chairman.
      The end of this model, according to the creator of the Theoretical History of Grigory Kvasha, will come in 2029. The year in which there will be a redistribution of property in the direction of the state, effective for society.
  30. Stalnov I.P.
    Stalnov I.P. 10 July 2017 09: 18
    0
    You can talk a lot about a planned economy, but even in the USA, Japan, Germany, economic planning exists, moreover, at the highest level, but now we don’t need the State Planning Commission in the form in which it was, when everything was distributed in the flesh to the bulbs, I ran into this. It is necessary to take the experience of Stalin in carrying out reforms and industrialization, in a good sense of the word, which was based on the quantity of manufactured products and their quality, and only then the financial component. The article missed another point. Perhaps the most important thing is the stratification of society. Here is an example, the country is the United Arab Emirates, Qatar (the largest income per capita), they have oil, gas, RUSSIA has oil, gas, coal, ores, gold, diamonds, fresh water, forest, black earth - 40% WORLD RESOURCES OF NATURAL RESOURCES and look how a simple CITIZEN lives there precisely CITIZENS of these countries and how our citizens live, it turns out the Arab sheikhs are many times smarter, more honest than our rulers. This is what primarily concerns the RUSSIANS, the authorities did not and do not ensure the SECURITY of their CITIZENS in the economic, political, criminal procedural, physical spheres, COMMUNISM was created for a handful of the so-called "elite" while not the best, Ulyukaev, Mara Baghdasaryan and others it is a SHAME, ACCIDENT and INACTIVITY of power, the behavior of these people simply outrages CITIZENS and especially the behavior of authorities that must respond to this behavior from the very top. AUTHORITY quietly lives in its own little world, but we must live by the aspirations of the PEOPLE!