2. Everywhere money, money, money ... and nostalgia for gold!
Continue An analysis of the Washington Consensus, nicknamed the Ten Commandments of Economic Killers.
In the first part, we showed that already in the first commandments the powerful weapon economic, ideological, informational and psychological warfare. To begin with, the requirement was put forward that government should be removed from economic regulation. Further, the requirements for monetary and investment policies were formulated, based on a half-truth for the capture of developing countries by the colonialists. As shows historical experience, the colonialists do not always resort to the armed forces to extract the wealth of other peoples they need. To do this, they first seek to create a system of power that suits them, which was shown in the first part of our material. Next comes the main tool of the "hybrid war" - money.
A monetary illusion is widespread in our minds - the idea that money can solve all problems. True, smart people say that if a problem can be solved with money, this is not a problem. But what is today's money really? For most people, and even for the government of the Russian Federation, they appear in “national projects” as something real-material, something that can be created, exchanged, saved, used for them. However, this seems to be a big, and often costly fallacy.
In fact, modern money exists in only two ways. The first is the recording of a certain number in the bank on the account that is open in your name. In the balance sheet of the bank it is presented as a bank debt to you. But this is a strange debt - the bank can give it to you in only two ways. First: if you yourself agree with someone that in exchange for the goods or services provided, your partner will agree to receive “payment” in the form of an entry on his account with his bank. Banks here do not guarantee anything and give nothing to anyone. They will simply reduce the amount of debt to you in your account and increase the amount of bank debt to your partner by this amount.
However, the story does not end there. If you do not ask the bank to repay his debt to you, then he will give a loan to another client for this amount, but on his own behalf. This loan is the client’s debt to the bank. But the bank will provide this loan in its usual form - as a bank debt. It turns out this way: the bank owes you plus it still owes another client the same money that you gave him a loan. This is called scientifically: the money multiplier, for starters, just a doubling of the money supply.
A good game was invented by bankers. There is no money - go to the bank. If they give you credit, then money will appear. If they do not give a loan, then there will be no money. If you are not satisfied with a cashless payment, then your bank will give you a central bank note called a banknote or bank ticket to pay off your debt. Further use of this banknote is your own business. The central bank does not owe you anything for this paper. Money does not print, banknotes of the Gosznak factory print, and this printing product will become money when the bank repays debt.
Therefore, the natural question is: what then is the meaning of what we call money? There is a sense, but it’s very simple. A monetary unit is simply a way to measure goods and services as a single economic measure - just a way to measure economically. This is how a person works, Homo sapiens: we not only think, but we can also save information by speaking, writing and counting. In 1960, the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) adopted a standard called the International System of Units (Le Système International d'Unités), also known as SI (SI). The main units in this system are meter, kilogram, second, ampere, degree Kelvin and candela. It took millennia to get to such meters, and even then, other, traditional methods of measurement are still used in different countries.
A natural question arises: why then in the economy come up with some other special way of measurement? After all, goods and services are easily measured by their special measures. Why else should they be translated into some other measure called the price of a product or service? Obviously, such a need may arise under certain conditions of the transfer of goods from hand to hand. As ethnographers and anthropologists show, in the primitive exchange of goods such a need did not arise. There has always been a certain ritual of exchange. And in our country in the 90s, we widely used barter, often without mediation of money.
As the experience of history shows, something similar to money appears with the advent of the tax system, when state power requires funds from an illiterate or semi-literate population to support the ruler and his servants. Yes, and then first in kind, and only then an impersonal requirement.
Therefore, it is clear that this requirement has evolved over millennia, expressed in a variety of forms. In the economy it is extremely difficult to find a gauge that would suit everyone. Many goods and services are difficult to reduce to one measure. Hypotheses about a certain property called value or value cause constant debate. Attempts at the expense of the unknown are not yet received, even when it comes to simple labor costs. As a result, depending on historical characteristics, different states began to come up with different ways to create even for illiterate subjects a symbol for determining the tribute that the authorities demanded of them. Therefore, at different times, different peoples considered how it would turn out. We can on fingers, we can shells, we can maple sticks, we can by weight of metal. And we can just by conventional signs on paper or on electronic media. And we can call anything: at least money, at least money, at least loot, at least cabbage. Only Homo sapiens loses his mind if he does not see the difference between real value and its conditional dimension.
Today, money is one of the types of government securities in paper or electronic form. By law, you can use them to pay for goods, work, property of any kind. In this they differ from the so-called cryptocurrencies, for which the law and the state do not stand. In this they differ from other types of securities that certify the right to a particular property. But in themselves they are not real material value. Therefore, the state can only declare a national monetary unit, but it cannot determine what can be purchased for it.
Nevertheless, almost always the monetary unit is “tied” to the price of some product. So, after the war, the dollar was pegged to gold at the exchange rate of $ 35 per troy ounce. That is why he then received the status of a reserve currency - a currency that all countries agreed to accept as a means of payment, leaving gold in the American vault. This allowed the States to issue any amount of money to world markets in accordance with their wishes. A simple mechanism for the appearance of dollars was created. Congress approves a budget that provides for a specific loan amount. The Treasury issues its bonds and offers their purchase to all comers. If it is not possible to place everything, the Fed acquires the remainder by issuing the necessary amount of its obligations, which are called dollars. Such a virtual pegging to the dollar was until 1971, when the US president announced its abolition in connection with the so-called. oil price revolution. After that, the whole question was only in the degree of confidence in the dollar and the US armed forces and special services.
In the USSR, twice in the course of monetary reforms after the restoration of a national economy destroyed by wars, the monetary unit was tied to gold. It was quite natural for a gold mining country. The last time the gold content of the ruble was established by Stalin in 1950. Before that, since 1937, he was pegged to the dollar. The USSR participated in a conference at which a decision was made on the dollar as a reserve currency. But in connection with the death of Roosevelt and the subsequent anti-Soviet orientation of the leadership of the former allies, it was necessary to refuse to ratify the agreement. In connection with the formation of a bloc of friendly states, Stalin decided on the gold parity of the ruble based on the status of a reserve currency alternative to the dollar. Unfortunately, Khrushchev, one of his anti-Soviet decisions, refused to tie the ruble to gold. In the relations between the countries of the social camp, a conditional "transfer ruble" was adopted. Once every five years, our Ministry of Finance announced the rate of the “transfer ruble” equal to one Soviet ruble, and other countries declared the rate favorable for their countries, and therefore there was a constant transfer of our national wealth to the former “social countries”, as well as inside the country from the RSFSR to other union republics . Khrushchev’s “experiment” over the Soviet economy ended with the fact that he snapped the whole country's gold reserves to buy American grain.
Therefore, in 1965, the question of the ways of further development of the national economy of the USSR was very acute. Kosygin A.N. instructed the deputy chairman of the State Planning Commission of the USSR A. Korobov submit proposals of the USSR State Planning Commission on these problems. In accordance with this, an order was prepared according to Gosplan No. 211 of March 9.03.1965, 8 on the creation of XNUMX groups on relevant issues and a joint group under the direction of the director of the Research Institute of Geological Engineering, A. Gosplan. Efimova. Ultimately, a three-person preparation report for the leadership in the reception of the chairman of the State Planning Committee was prepared: EA Ivanov (consolidated department of the State Planning Commission), Matlin AM (department for the introduction of economic and mathematical methods in planning the national economy), Belousov R.A. (NIIE Gosplan of the USSR). The report was approved at the September plenary session of the CPSU Central Committee, and that was the end of the matter. The main ideas of the report were published in a collective work published immediately after the plenary session: “Economic maneuver and methods of managing”.
But the maneuver in the economy of the then gerontocracy was beyond the power. It all ended not with work to change the proportions of the economy and the economic mechanism, which required considerable effort, but with primitive and simple solutions. We agreed with the proposals of Kharkov professor Liberman and launched a "cost accounting", which led to a loss of controllability of the economy. Instead of focused work to increase the production of goods and improve the standard of living of the population, they began to use the sale of oil and partially used the funds allocated for the purchase of goods for the population through imports, mainly from socialist countries. Then it was still possible to maintain socialism, but this chance was missed. The country was planted on an “oil needle” and the development of production for the sake of production.
Turning to our time, it should be noted that the so-called an oil needle is a big bluff. In fact, our ruble is not tied to the price of oil, but to the American dollar, because the price of oil is determined in dollars, and oil and gas are the main sources of its production.
Due to the pegging of the ruble to the dollar, Russia does not have economic sovereignty and is forced to serve foreign capital. The latter, weakening the ruble, is taking over an increasingly large part of our national property. In addition to the lowered exchange rate, the underestimation of the value of our enterprises, as was shown in the first part of our material, is also exceeded by the interest rate. The value of shares varies depending on its profitability in comparison with the profitability of other investment methods. Therefore, if the percentage in Russia is 6, and in the USA - 0,25%, then with equal profitability, the shares of a Russian enterprise will be 24 times cheaper than the shares of an American enterprise.
Historical experience suggests that one can get out of the position of a semi-colony with two tricks.
First: pegging the ruble to gold, but with a limited exchange of rubles for gold for non-residents. But to introduce the gold content of the ruble, it is not enough to have gold available. It is enough now: by 1.1.2020, for every ruble of the money supply in the national definition in Russia, there were 14 kopecks of gold. Given the mass of commodities, this is enough to have a solid national currency in the country. But this will not happen with the current organization of the monetary economy in the country, with private ownership of precious metals mining enterprises and the absence of a state monopoly on their acquisition. It should be noted that the Central Bank does not require money to purchase these metals. On the contrary, when purchasing gold and reflecting its purchase in the bank’s assets, the amount of debt to the seller of the debt is simply recorded in the liability, that is, the country's money supply simply increases.
The second method is the refusal to open bank accounts of potential opponents, as was done by the USSR and China in 1952. Apparently, the current leaders of our Central Bank simply do not know this experience of the world monetary system, which was very well known Gerashchenko.
Given all of the above, it is necessary to conclude that the use of modern money, especially foreign, is inconsequential as a motivation for the economic and political activities of a sovereign state and a competent population. Therefore, the “free exchange rate of the national currency” does not correspond to the national interests of the country.
The next point of the Washington consensus: “Liberalization of foreign trade” (mainly due to lower import duties). Reducing import duty rates leads to cheaper imported goods, which may adversely affect the development of domestic production. Therefore, many countries seek to create equal, and better preferable conditions for their producers. The experience of France is very interesting in this regard.
There was invented value added tax, VAT. The inventor of this tax is Maurice Loret, Director of the Directorate of Taxes, Dues and VAT, of the French Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry. At first, in 1954, a new type of tax was tested in the French colony, Côte d'Ivoire. Having recognized the experiment as successful, the French introduced it in their home in 1958. Subsequently, all countries of the European Community by a directive of the Council of the EEC were ordered to introduce VAT for economic entities on their territory until the end of 1972. This tax leads to higher prices for imports, but when applied to domestic goods, it also leads to higher prices for domestic goods. This makes it unprofitable to process raw materials domestically. The refusal of export taxation further stimulates the export of primary raw materials with minimal processing. As a result, the country becomes a raw materials appendage of other countries and a buyer of necessary goods abroad, even those made from its raw materials. Since this creates an excessive need for foreign currency, its economic and, therefore, foreign policy independence sharply decreases.
The extreme case of such dependence on other countries is the irrational use of export earnings. In the balance of payments it is not in vain reflected on the loan. For exported real values, only promises in the form of foreign currency are issued. If our state uses this currency to acquire the buyer's debt obligations, then double crediting of the buyer is obtained: first with goods, then with money. That is why the "developed" countries from ancient times sell less than they buy - unless they are paid with gold.
I want to remind you: when Khrushchev liquidated agriculture, he paid 2900 tons of gold for American grain. Truly, when you look at our rulers, you remember an old song: "Papa’s dad is strong in mathematics, papa decides, and Vasya gives up." It’s not difficult to guess who is “dad” in this song and who is “Vasya”. In any case, this does not even smell like competent bookkeeping.
This is the ten commandments of economic killers. And for those who can catch it, the eleventh one appears: grab whatever is in the colony on the basis of lies about world practice and settle in the metropolis for permanent residence.