Military Review

Does Russia need to abandon oil and gas exports: reflections on export-import imbalance

91

Among some Russians there is an opinion that the government, deputies and officials exist at their expense. But it’s known that Russia has the main income from the sale of hydrocarbons, and not so many people are involved in this industry compared with the total population of the country.


But, perhaps, everything is completely different, and Russia is not so much dependent on the export of raw materials, as the colonial countries used to be? Turn to the numbers.

In the first five months of this year (January-May), Russia received about $ 33,7 billion from the sale of oil abroad. This indicator decreased by almost a third compared to the same period in 2019 - by 31,4 percent.

These data were released on July 7 by the Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation.

In physical terms, Russia sent 104,4 million tons of oil abroad in five months, which is only 1,7 percent less than the same period. This significant difference between a slight decline in export volumes and a noticeable decrease in sales revenue is explained by the fact that world oil prices this year are much lower than last year.

As for oil products, the decline in their exports in physical terms amounted to only 0,6 percent, but in monetary terms, the country received 23% less this year compared to the previous one.


Gazprom for the five months of 2020 sold overseas natural gas for $ 9,7 billion, that is, more than half the amount than for the same period in 2019. At the same time, the physical decrease in volume did not exceed 22 percent. And this is explained simply: the fall in gas export prices this year amounted to more than 38 percent of the level of 2019.

All the above figures are very important for the Russian economy, because fuel and energy resources are the main export item of our country. This year, their share in exports amounted to 56,1 percent, and in January-May of the previous year it was even higher - 65,6 percent.

I will not dive into the structure of Russian imports and its dynamics in detail. I can only say that the main import item for Russia is the purchase of machinery and equipment, whose share is 46 percent. At the same time, the European Union is our main trading partner.

To summarize all of the above, it turns out that Russia mainly sells energy raw materials and petroleum products, and purchases engineering products, most often European ones. At the same time, Russia is earning less and less from the sale of hydrocarbons, which means that the country is spending natural resources, but is not getting rich.

Of course, we can recall the coronavirus, which caused the economic crisis and lower prices for hydrocarbons. But two things should be understood. Firstly, a fall in commodity prices and economic crises are inevitable, they happen periodically without pandemics, so you need to be prepared for them, diversifying the economy. And secondly, we must not forget that oil and gas, no matter how many of them are in our bowels, are non-renewable resources, that is, they will end sooner or later.

And the so-called "green" energy is becoming more and more popular in the world, affecting a decrease in hydrocarbon demand.

It should be understood that the world is constantly changing. And if you do not follow these changes, you can be left overboard.

For example, you may notice that, although the export of raw materials has fed Russia for decades, it is gradually becoming unprofitable. It is much more correct to process natural resources within the country and export products with higher surplus value. This will allow both to raise incomes and create jobs.

The United States and Europe have leverage over Russia exactly as long as we continue to export raw materials and semi-finished products, and import high-tech products. It is clear that it is easier to sell oil and buy equipment in the West than to create your own, but this is the road to nowhere. It is much more correct to prioritize not the mining industry, as it is now, but engineering, petrochemicals, electronics and other industries associated with advanced processing of raw materials and high technologies. But so far this is from the series “for all good, against all bad”.

No one claims that it is necessary to stop exporting hydrocarbons, but it would be nice to change the existing export-import imbalance.

How to do it? There are probably no ready-made solutions here. To find them, the government will have to work hard and think more. This is the key. In some sectors, large state or semi-state monopolies will show their effectiveness. In others, it will be more correct to create conditions for competition between small or medium enterprises. The main thing is not to sit still, but to act, even making mistakes. But mistakes are good, because in the end they help to find the right solution to any problem.
Author:
91 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Insurgent
    Insurgent 8 July 2020 08: 32 New
    +9
    Does Russia need to abandon oil and gas exports: reflections on export-import imbalance

    It is foolish and criminal to formulate export diversification in this way ...
    Maybe we need to talk about a change in the imbalance in the supply of raw materials and finished products? And not only in the field of oil and gas processing ...

    The field for discussion of what needs to be straightened out in the economic sector of the Russian Federation is extremely wide.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 8 July 2020 08: 46 New
      23
      will have to work hard, and think even more.
      But with this strained! Easier to drive oil and gas .....
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 8 July 2020 10: 14 New
        +3
        the government will have to work hard and think more. This is the key.

        do not jump above your head - it all depends on the teacher, she adjusts the brains of the "jumper" 20 years before the "jump". as we learned - so we will develop - speed, direction, costs, etc., everything is in the beginning and the average full school - UP TO 9TH CLASS, then only specialization and polishing of knowledge

        look at the programs of schools in 1990–2000, up to a maximum of 2015 - those graduates now rule the whole country with this knowledge.
        1. aleksejkabanets
          aleksejkabanets 8 July 2020 10: 55 New
          +7
          Quote: antivirus
          do not jump above your head - it all depends on the teacher, she adjusts the brains of the "jumper" 20 years before the "jump". as we learned - so we will develop - speed, direction, costs, etc., everything is in the beginning and the average full school - UP TO 9TH CLASS, then only specialization and polishing of knowledge

          You are absolutely right. In the flight of Gagarin, the merits of the conditional Marya Ivanovna, a teacher of elementary grades, were no less than that of the Korolev.
        2. frog
          frog 8 July 2020 23: 01 New
          +1
          It all depends not on the teacher, although there is also a lot of it. True, now - it’s nothing .... But much more depends on the personnel selection system. By what principle is the screening of characters on the way up. If as usual - no teacher will help ......
          1. antivirus
            antivirus 9 July 2020 17: 45 New
            0
            the teacher prepares a screener of personnel and forms a public opinion in the subconscious mind how to demand his own and when to keep silent
            1. frog
              frog 10 July 2020 08: 59 New
              0
              This is not done at all by the teacher. And the whole educational system as a whole. Including real, available in society, not declared declarations. In the same Union, dualism between the declared and the real began in school. and went on, went on, went on ..... And by itself the teacher there was an eighth wheel. Although, of course, there was ....
    2. Civil
      Civil 8 July 2020 08: 56 New
      +4
      Yes, it’s too late, there is no one to resolve the situation. It will be as it will.
      Rosstat reported that the average age of a Russian citizen was 40,02 years.
      Chechnya has become the youngest region in Russia, where the average age of a resident is 28,68 years. Next are Tuva (29,75), Ingushetia (31,55), Dagestan (32,97) and YNAO (33,92).

      The oldest region in the country is Tambov Oblast (43,4). Also, the regions with a higher average age included Tula (43,31), Ryazan (42,79) and Penza oblasts (42,62), as well as Moscow (42,3).

      Well, after 40 years, people will NOT change any stability for new reforms. Moreover, the retirement age will be raised to 72 men. There is no other way out, given the decline of the economy, and not only the economy, to support an aging population. True, there is one more nuance, as the population ages, Russia will be increasingly inhabited by a horde of grandmothers))))
      1. Insurgent
        Insurgent 8 July 2020 09: 00 New
        -2
        Quote: Civil
        Yes late already

        Put off the panic !

        A famous character said that by the way, marry to straighten the economy is never too early, and never too late, by the way yes
        1. Civil
          Civil 8 July 2020 09: 06 New
          +6
          Stop the panic!

          No way. No panic, strictly numbers. Per 1000 able-bodied population, 15-59 in 2019 according to Rosstat 360 elderly people. Given the mortality of men, it turns out about 260-270 attendants per 1000 able-bodied citizens. By the way, this is the most faithful electorate of GDP. And the basis of all election commissions.) Be like a grandmother, keep the fate of the country in your hands) good
    3. Svarog
      Svarog 8 July 2020 09: 10 New
      14
      Indeed, a strange formulation of the question. Here we need to talk not about failure, but about the development of other industries. Almost everyone is in decline.
      1. Insurgent
        Insurgent 8 July 2020 09: 13 New
        +7
        Quote: Svarog
        Indeed, a strange formulation of the question.

        This is exactly what I had in mind, just in the morning there is no desire to write about it more fully and voluminously.

        Unnecessarily it yes , the sane and so sees what the "bias" in the economy and export.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 8 July 2020 17: 00 New
        +1
        This is how buyers and free markets for these other industries will appear - then they will have growth, you can swell any amount of money into high-tech production, but get continuous losses at the exit, since the return on these industries is too long, and the risks are associated with this is the maximum - the production of civil microprocessors in Russia as an example, its own sales market is too small, and the whole world is crammed with AMD and Intel, so they are not produced in Russia except for the military.
        1. Svarog
          Svarog 8 July 2020 17: 03 New
          +2
          Quote: Vadim237
          This is how buyers and free markets for these other industries will appear - then they will have growth,

          Buyers will not appear, the product should appear competitive, and then buyers can be sought ..
          since the payback of these industries is too long, and the risks in this regard are maximum - the production of civil microprocessors in Russia as an example, its own sales market is too small, and the whole world is crammed with AMD and Intel, so they are not produced in Russia except for the military.

          It is necessary not to copy, but to be one step ahead .. then they will buy. But in order to be one step ahead, it is necessary to develop science, and in order to develop science, it is necessary to start with education .. And of course, state support ..
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 9 July 2020 01: 42 New
            +1
            There are products - but there are no buyers and the market is squeezed - you won’t take money from the air to create a new product; you need to sell available to make them to create a new one, and now there are problems - a drop in demand all over the world.
          2. Simple
            Simple 9 July 2020 08: 06 New
            0
            Quote: Svarog
            It is necessary not to copy, but to be one step ahead .. then they will buy.


            To copy as China (without patent law. Extending to Europe),
            You have to be China.
            To be one step ahead is again from the area of ​​fiction.

            Quote: Svarog
            ... you need to start with education ..

            Total (under the most favorable conditions) at least twenty years.
      3. Maki Avellevich
        Maki Avellevich 10 July 2020 09: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Svarog
        Indeed, a strange formulation of the question. Here we need to talk not about failure, but about the development of other industries. Almost everyone is in decline.

        Quote: Svarog
        Indeed, a strange formulation of the question. Here we need to talk not about failure, but about the development of other industries. Almost everyone is in decline.

        it is very difficult.
        The Spaniards found themselves in a somewhat similar situation when they began to mine silver in America.
        in a fairly short time, the flow of this metal has virtually destroyed all the productive sectors of their economy.
        it became more profitable to buy than to produce. their neighbors developed their industry for the Isapanese pesos at a time when the Spanish thawed.
        the flow of silver eventually dried up and the Spanish economy has not been able to recover to this day.
    4. Pravodel
      Pravodel 8 July 2020 09: 47 New
      16
      What the article is about is not at all clear. The assertion that it is better to produce and sell products of high processing and with high added value is obvious and does not require evidence and, especially, such lengthy arguments and articles. Now, if the author, instead of the obvious, wrote how to move from the sale of raw materials to the production of high value-added products with high added value, it would be interesting. But in the article about this - there is only one phrase: the government should work well. As a result, one chatter and nothing more, verbiage hidden behind beautiful loud phrases and headlines.
      1. WIKI
        WIKI 8 July 2020 11: 06 New
        +4
        Quote: The Truth
        Now, if the author, instead of the obvious, wrote how to switch from the sale of raw materials to the production of high value added products with high added value, it would be interesting

        “Putin reprimanded officials for the slow growth of the economy and demanded immediately (!) To accelerate it. You know, it is possible to require officials to organize economic growth at least 5 times. Sense something? There is no economic growth in Russia, not because of the poor work of officials. And for the reason, excuse the pun, their work is in principle. The main task of an official at any time and in any country in the world is to prove his need and importance. An official is important and significant when he regulates everything and receives reports for everyone. Bottom line: the more officials work, the more regulation in the economy. This can be said to be a law. ” Apparently, the GDP is difficult to comprehend this law; its goal is to remain in power at all costs. Therefore, the number of officials during his reign doubled.
        1. CSKA
          CSKA 8 July 2020 14: 29 New
          -2
          Quote: WIKI
          There is no economic growth in Russia, not because of the poor work of officials.

          Economic growth in the Russian Federation for 2019 1,3% is in your opinion the lack of economic growth?
          1. WIKI
            WIKI 8 July 2020 15: 20 New
            +2
            The growth of Russia's gross domestic product from 2008-2019 at constant prices amounted to only 11%, with an average global rate of 45% and a result of developing countries of 70%. GDP in
            CONSTANT PRICES is used to study dynamics and is called real.
            1. CSKA
              CSKA 9 July 2020 14: 19 New
              +1
              Quote: WIKI
              The growth of Russia's gross domestic product from 2008-2019 at constant prices amounted to only 11%, with an average global rate of 45% and a result of developing countries of 70%.

              It turns out that. World average indicators. But I’d better take, for example, the UK indicators from 2008 to 2017, and it’s 11,2%. And you can still take France 12,8%. And what are the world average indicators due to different Rwanda and Equatorial Guinea I do not care deeply. Of course, you can focus on them, but I’d better be to economically developed countries with a high standard of living.
              1. WIKI
                WIKI 10 July 2020 09: 47 New
                0
                Let's look at the PPP GDP. Russia is in fifth place. About human well-being, it's about nothing. Let’s see how wealth is growing on the example of changes in GDP per capita PPP per person over the period 2011-2019. Russia 22% Great Britain 25%, Portugal, which we all tried to overtake, 26%, Turkey 49%, China 91%, a former ally and one of the unsuccessful countries in Europe Bulgaria is 44%. According to the former union rep. Kazakhstan 36%, Uzbekistan 70%, Georgia 63%, Armenia 61%, Latvia 58%. Thank God at least Belarus overtook 20%, Ukraine 17%.
    5. georgiigennadievitch
      georgiigennadievitch 15 July 2020 10: 50 New
      0
      It is not necessary to sell raw materials, but products with high added value made from it. You only need to buy what is impossible for production in Russia due to natural and climatic factors (tea, coffee, cocoa beans, citrus fruits), or what we cannot produce yet. At the same time, we need to focus on import substitution of such products. This is actually an axiom. And now let's see how the situation with foreign trade is now. The so-called product pipelines drive oil and gas over the hill. We sell fertilizers, round timber, metallurgy products of the first redistribution (e.g. aluminum in pigs, etc.), grain. We buy motor vehicles, airplanes, ships, equipment, machine tools and software, consumer goods, electronics, etc., that is, products with a high delivered cost. But for example, the simplest examples of the elementary common sense that we do not have: the "father" built he owns several oil refineries in Belarus for Russian loans and drives for export products produced from Russian cheap raw materials - diesel fuel, gasoline, etc. Turks buy our grain, but sell it in the form of flour to Arabs, etc. we ourselves give to other countries our potential profit and jobs. But in reality there are thousands of such examples, including those with more complex production chains. It may be enough to be short-sighted and armless "owners" with momentary selfish interests and it’s time to start to turn our economy upside down? For this we need real state targeted programs with clear guidelines and objectives and deadlines for both state and private companies and tight control over their implementation. If the owners of private companies oppose this, or sabotage, then they need to be forced, but not those who want to nationalize according to the principle: how much you bought, you will get the same amount for them.
  2. Alex66
    Alex66 8 July 2020 08: 39 New
    +8
    In my opinion, it is necessary to refuse the export of oil and gas. It must be used here at a cheap price. The low energy price in Russia will make us more attractive to investors, no matter what government programs. And our departure from the market will increase world prices, which is also a plus in our favor.
    1. Nastia makarova
      Nastia makarova 8 July 2020 08: 47 New
      -5
      refuse??? what kind of stupidity, the United States, on the contrary, seeks to trade in oil and gas, but we must refuse, pensions will immediately fall 5 times and default will occur in Russia
      1. Alex66
        Alex66 8 July 2020 08: 59 New
        +9
        This process can be stretched for 20 years and the US economy, unlike ours, is more diversified, it is not a sin to trade oil and gas if prices are good. And you became alarmed as if I suggested you lose your job in Gazprom.
        1. Nastia makarova
          Nastia makarova 8 July 2020 10: 14 New
          -4
          you proposed depriving 50% of the budget revenues of Russia, even if you engage in new industrialization, it will take 50 years and never will compete with China
          1. Alex66
            Alex66 8 July 2020 11: 12 New
            +2
            Yes, I propose to abandon (gradually) the trade in raw materials, and at the expense of prices below world prices, attract investors who will process it in Russia to the final product with high added value. But this is not a task for our government, it is easier for him to pull pipes than to engage in new industrialization.
      2. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 8 July 2020 10: 17 New
        10
        Quote: Nastia Makarova
        refuse??? what kind of stupidity, the United States, on the contrary, seeks to trade in oil and gas, but we must refuse,

        The share of oil and gas sales in US GDP is 7,6% ... Russia - 20-23% ... This dollar costs 72 rubles, and not vice versa. Ordinary citizens from this pie crumbs crumbs ...
      3. WIKI
        WIKI 8 July 2020 10: 35 New
        -1
        Quote: Nastia Makarova
        the United States, on the contrary, seeks to trade in oil and gas

        And if in numbers? What is their balance of oil export-import?
    2. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 8 July 2020 08: 52 New
      15
      It is possible to reduce the price domestically without stopping exports.
      The author climbed to extremes, and as you know, they are not doing well. You need to get off the needle but due to the needle.
      The problem is that in our country, hucksters rather than statesmen rule the oil industry.
      This is easily understood by government policy regarding gas prices. They either explain the rise in prices to world prices, or the need to support the oil industry. And what can be developed with such taxes and with such fuel prices? The state not only does not help the development of the economy, it interferes!
      1. Courier
        Courier 8 July 2020 09: 09 New
        -2
        State officials rule the oil industry, this comes from your own comment. Taxes are generally not to hucksters, Mr., but to your beloved statesman.

        Only experience shows that the worst huckster is a hundred times more useful than the dumb official you name a statesman
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 8 July 2020 09: 19 New
          11
          It is foolish to hope that dumb people are sitting upstairs. Look at all their actions - they look stupid only from the point of view of what you see as their goal of developing the country.
          If we take as the basis the thesis that their true goals are the collapse of the country (!), Then all their actions become very meaningful and very literate.
          Based on this, one should think well, calling them stupid. hi
          1. Svarog
            Svarog 8 July 2020 10: 03 New
            +7
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            If we take as the basis the thesis that their true goals are the collapse of the country (!), Then all their actions become very meaningful and very literate.

            I think that they don’t want to ruin the country, they want to milk it .. but such a consumer attitude will eventually lead to collapse .. hi
            1. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 8 July 2020 10: 06 New
              +9
              Quote: Svarog
              but such a consumer attitude will ultimately lead to collapse ..

              And they cannot but understand this. Therefore, all the loot is taken out of the country
          2. Ross xnumx
            Ross xnumx 8 July 2020 10: 20 New
            +6
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            It is foolish to hope that dumb people are sitting upstairs. Look at all their actions - they look stupid only from the point of view of what you see as their goal of developing the country.

            wassat
            It is foolish to hope that the thimbles are stupid scammers ...
            We don’t have to look at them. They need to create such conditions that stupidly driving raw materials abroad will be like death.
            1. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 8 July 2020 10: 23 New
              +6
              They will never create them, for they are not profitable. request And the people that, he will endure. Why? bully
          3. CSKA
            CSKA 8 July 2020 14: 32 New
            0
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            If we take as the basis the thesis that their true goals are the collapse of the country (!), Then all their actions become very meaningful and very literate.

            )))))) And here the next fairy tale about a conspiracy began, that would turn out to ruin the country. But what kind of actions can you give as an example?
      2. Oyo Sarkazmi
        Oyo Sarkazmi 8 July 2020 09: 16 New
        0
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        It is possible to reduce the price domestically without stopping exports.

        A seller’s price reduction is a disaster. For it is a reduction in salaries and equipment upgrades.
        You reason from the point of view of the household buyer - the cheaper, the better. But personally, they themselves, raised potatoes, carried to the market, and sold cheaply. Everyone has forty, you have five. Buyers will sweep away everything instantly. But what good is it for you?
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 8 July 2020 09: 23 New
          +5
          Due to what is now reduced the price of gasoline in the US? Salaries to workers reduced, or the equipment stopped updating? wink and not only in the USA, many more developed countries can be cited as an example, where fuel is cheaper now and the salary is higher.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 8 July 2020 17: 25 New
      +2
      For starters, you would ask how much of Russia’s oil and gas is exported in 2019. In total, 561 million barrels of oil were produced and 644 billion cubic meters of gas were exported in the same year, 267,5 million barrels of oil were exported, and 259,4 billion cubic meters of gas, roughly 50% remains in Russia for its needs and other industries. And if you think that Russia’s withdrawal from the global production market will somehow improve our financial situation, you’re mistaken - all oil producing countries will increase their production by two and three, and not we will earn money, but they will lose 200 billion dollars in revenues to the NWF economy, and Russia doesn’t have other products equivalent to replace these same 200 billion oil exports overnight and in the next 10 to 15 years they’ll appear because there is no free market for their sale, as well as the actual products that will be in great demand - this is a rejection oil and gas export is impossible and not needed.
  3. boris epstein
    boris epstein 8 July 2020 09: 00 New
    +3
    I propose reading an article (not mine): "The giant industry was created from scratch: 42 huge factories built in Russia." I give excerpts from it.
    About import. Yes, there is a tendency for vehicles to switch to electric traction, gas or hydrogen. Electric traction batteries, electrolyte, anode-cathode plates. Electrolyte preparation, filling the battery, disposal of spent electrolyte and plates is an environmentally hazardous production. Liquefied gas in Russia is already being produced, many plants have been built. Hydrogen is produced and its production will increase. By the way, there is an insider that it is precisely hydrogen that will be distilled along Nord Stream-2. Demand for it in the EU is growing, it does not fall under sanctions. And now, excerpts from the proposed article.
    “Russia from the USSR got 26 morally and physically aging oil refineries. Of these, 8 were put into operation before the Great Patriotic War, 5 - were built before 1950, 9 - until 1960.
    The petrochemical industry has always been the backbone of any industry, the pride of any, most highly developed country. And today, Russia is the third country in the world for the production of petrochemical products. Moreover, just recently, Russia was a net importer of many polymers, such as polyethylene. Today we not only cover all domestic needs, but also export this product.
    From the USSR we got an industry in which, for example, gasoline output was about 70%, the rest is fuel oil - petrochemical production wastes. They burned fuel oil in boiler rooms and power plants, killing nature, and exported it in large volumes. More than 30% of the extracted oil is fuel oil, waste. Can you imagine that? "
    “Today, Russia does not export and almost does not produce fuel oil. Oil production in 2019 amounted to 47,3 million tons - this is the minimum figure for more than 50 years.
    Finished products, such as diesel fuel, gasoline, polymers, took its place in the export of oil products. Because the global restructuring of the industry made it possible to achieve oil refining at many refineries. On average, the oil refining depth in 100 was 2019%, (the average European level), whereas in 82,7 it was 1999%.
    The volume of oil refining in 2019 amounted to 290 million tons. - 3rd place in the world: after the United States (approximately 800 million tons in 2019) and China (more than 650 million tons), but ahead of India (250 million tons) . That is, today we process about 60% of the oil produced in the country inside the country.
    And, which pleases, we do not stop there. Today we have already exceeded the USSR oil refining indicators, and we did it at a new technological level, building a new industry - much more efficient. But a number of giant refineries are being built in the country today, which will soon lead our country to absolute leaders in many areas of oil refining, allowing in many cases to abandon the export of crude oil, replacing it with refined products. This is an obvious strategy of our country, which has been actively implemented over the past 18 years. "
    So not everything is so gloomy.
  4. NDR-791
    NDR-791 8 July 2020 09: 00 New
    +7
    we must not forget that oil and gas, no matter how many of them are in our bowels, are non-renewable resources, that is, they will end sooner or later.
    There is the so-called "hydride theory of the structure of the earth." One can argue with something in it, however, it explains the "inexplicable" including the self-healing of depleted deposits. When used wisely, it is, oddly enough, restored.
    And the so-called "green" energy is becoming more and more popular in the world, affecting a decrease in hydrocarbon demand.
    At least thirty times popular !!! From this, it does not become cheaper and more environmentally friendly. And this, too, has long been proven.
    It is much more correct to process natural resources within the country and export products with higher surplus value. This will allow both to raise incomes and create jobs.

    But I agree with that! However, stupidly download is much easier
  5. Courier
    Courier 8 July 2020 09: 00 New
    +1
    In some sectors, large state or semi-state monopolies will show their effectiveness

    Do not show, do not show right now.
  6. tarabar
    tarabar 8 July 2020 09: 05 New
    +8
    I was waiting for some analysis, an idea, or at least an interesting thought on the topic given by the heading, and as a result:
    The main thing is not to sit still, but to act, even making mistakes. But mistakes are good, because in the end they help to find the right solution to any problem.
  7. Oyo Sarkazmi
    Oyo Sarkazmi 8 July 2020 09: 07 New
    -1
    Without the export of Russian energy, the world economy will collapse worse than the Great Depression. Our share in the European energy sector is a quarter, and you can’t replace it in a few years - the logistics are so formed.
    And the share of natural resources in state revenues is no longer the main one. For from the export (any, even oil, even weapons), the state receives only taxes, and not the entire amount. Therefore, 66% of tax revenues to the budget come from domestic consumption. Yes, and imports are also budget revenues: customs duties.
    So wean yourself from the thought that we are selling our oil, but we are buying machines for ourselves. Oil is sold by a specific company that pays sales and turnover taxes, and a company that pays customs duty buys machines.
  8. Rostislav
    Rostislav 8 July 2020 09: 15 New
    +8
    An article from the series "for all good versus all bad".
  9. Courier
    Courier 8 July 2020 09: 16 New
    +6
    To boost the economy, you need to shut up for 30 years about your unique path and just follow Western recipes. Market reforms, tax cuts, and above all the elimination of monopolies.
    Just take the Sherman Antitrust Act for 1890 and copy.
    Remove monopolies, create a competitive market. Different companies will fight for the consumer, reducing costs.
    What a damn economy, when on the one hand Russian Railways, without competitors, on the other Aeroflot, and on the third oil and gas.
    What a cheap gas, what a finished product. Why is this a monopoly at all.
    1. A.TOR
      A.TOR 8 July 2020 09: 55 New
      0
      You have very accurately formulated the TRUE needs of Russia.
    2. bar
      bar 8 July 2020 09: 55 New
      +5
      To boost the economy, you need to shut up for 30 years about your unique path and just follow Western recipes.

      And the stupid Chinese did the opposite - shut up about Western recipes and just stupidly went on their own unique path. And the funny thing is - they all worked out. And even faster than 30 years.
      1. Courier
        Courier 8 July 2020 10: 02 New
        +1
        American Google to help: 《Market reforms of China with 79》
        A very special way, licked a little more than completely.
  10. Vikxnumx
    Vikxnumx 8 July 2020 09: 17 New
    13
    To summarize all of the above, it turns out that Russia mainly sells energy raw materials and petroleum products, and purchases engineering products, most often European ones. At the same time, Russia is earning less and less from the sale of hydrocarbons, which means that the country is spending natural resources, but is not getting rich.

    And how much of this purchased equipment goes to oil and gas?
    It is necessary to build your industry. Tariffs do not strangle people and production!
    And strangle theft. With the confiscation of everything and executions ...
    1. Ragnar Lodbrok
      Ragnar Lodbrok 8 July 2020 09: 34 New
      16
      Dreams, dreams ... How sweet your dreams are ... You need to, only no one has been doing this for 30 years and is not going to do it. Stupidly swing.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 8 July 2020 17: 33 New
        +1
        The share of oil and gas in the structure of Russia's GDP is 19% - so you can "Download" tales that no one does anything 30 years later.
  11. bar
    bar 8 July 2020 09: 42 New
    +2
    But it’s known that Russia has the main income from the sale of hydrocarbons

    In total, it was necessary to cite the figures of the share of budget revenues from oil and gas, which in different years varied from 1/3 to half of the budget. After that, the answer to the question in the title will be obvious.
    1. Vikxnumx
      Vikxnumx 8 July 2020 09: 47 New
      +6
      In total, it was necessary to cite the figures of the share of budget revenues from oil and gas, which in different years varied from 1/3 to half of the budget. After that, the answer to the question in the title will be obvious.

      And also give ways to write off losses of Rosneft, Gazprom, etc. approximate.
      Losses - to the budget, profits - to shareholders !!!
      1. bar
        bar 8 July 2020 09: 51 New
        +3
        And also give ways to write off losses of Rosneft, Gazprom, etc. approximate.
        Losses - to the budget, profits - to shareholders !!!

        And at the same time, so as not to get up twice, and the list of these shareholders, among which the state owns 50 +% in Gazprom and 75 +% in Rosneft.
  12. Maks1995
    Maks1995 8 July 2020 10: 06 New
    +7
    "No one claims to be"
    IMHO, when they say NECESSARY, MUST, then - a complete dummy.
    Who do you want?
    They noticed that they brought in how much oil they imported, but they didn’t say slyly how many 2 refined products took "?
    “it was only 0,6 percent, but in monetary terms, the country received 23 percent less this year than last year.” - that is, it is beneficial for the country, but so much mapo that it’s a shame to write numbers ....

    Titan, Steel, Aluminum, nickel and the like have not been mentioned at all, since they are all offshore and non-Russian, as it were ...

    "... but changing an existing export-import imbalance would be nice."
    Putin and K have already stated this. Not once. And they even said that the share fell to 30-40%.

    And here's the bang, and: "Their share in exports this year was 56,1 percent, and in January-May of the previous year it was even higher - 65,6 percent"

    The president, with his amendments, will not lie and cheat, right? So, in the article, something is not patriotic, completely unpatriotic .....
  13. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 8 July 2020 10: 21 New
    0
    To summarize all of the above, it turns out that Russia mainly sells energy raw materials and oil products, and purchases engineering products, most often European ones.

    Sanctions to help Russia will change this imbalance.
  14. codetalker
    codetalker 8 July 2020 11: 02 New
    0
    No, export, of course you need to save. But it should not so dominate domestic consumption (of hydrocarbons). I think in the medium-term perspective we will see state initiative from the category: “priority of the domestic market” and so on.
  15. EvilLion
    EvilLion 8 July 2020 11: 18 New
    +3
    Another “expert” against all the bad for all the good.
  16. faterdom
    faterdom 8 July 2020 11: 31 New
    +4
    There are probably no ready-made solutions here. To find them, the government will have to work hard and think more.

    If this suddenly happens, we will see it in just six months, as was the case with the Primakov-Maslyukov government.
    But this was the only six-month glimpse in the last 30 years, for sure, and now we see the “mischievous monkey” and her cheerful but close-minded friends who are transplanting ... Kudrin-Golikova-Gref-Nabuulin started to play a quartet ... Or to bring they took the luggage ... I’m afraid they themselves don’t understand what they want to do ....
    And ... for sure: - endlessly execute the "May decrees" !!!
    12th year, 18th year, 24th year, 30th year. This is such an addiction - as you begin to execute, you cannot come off!
    "I love the decree in early May!"
  17. 123456789
    123456789 8 July 2020 11: 38 New
    +1
    In some sectors, large state or semi-state monopolies will show their effectiveness. In others - it will be more correct to create conditions for competition between small or medium enterprises

    Monopoly - stagnation! Competition is the engine of progress!
  18. CBR600
    CBR600 8 July 2020 11: 57 New
    +2
    Reduce domestic energy prices relative to exports. Every 30. Why don’t you try?
    And in general, the extracted resources themselves - minerals there, ore and all the same decrease in price for the domestic market. I am not an economist, of course it sounds probably stupid. But I don’t see another. Calibrate laws on growth and development. We need an active economy. And where should she come from? Entrepreneurs agree to total control, but unstable laws, energy carriers, filthy courts, everything is against development.
    _
    Ed .. The hegemony of hydrocarbons in the economy. This is what needs to be fixed. So who will allow us? Uncles from above will threaten with a finger - CC! You are in the WTO, there in the IMF .... It’s not customary with us.
    We have...
  19. AK1972
    AK1972 8 July 2020 12: 05 New
    +1
    It is much more correct to prioritize not the mining industry, as it is now, but engineering, petrochemicals, electronics and other industries associated with advanced processing of raw materials and high technologies.

    In the article, the author simply repeated the words of Dmitry Anatolyevich and Vladimir Vladimirovich to us. They repeatedly spoke in a box about the need to diversify the economy, develop technology, etc. etc., and the most frequently used words were: "we need", "we need." I agree, and it is necessary and necessary, but who will do it? Skolkovo and Rusnano? Maybe I missed something, but I don’t see technological breakthroughs from them, and I don’t see the will from the government to change anything.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 8 July 2020 17: 36 New
      0
      Look bad at seeing - especially when you are not interested in anything at all.
  20. Cowbra
    Cowbra 8 July 2020 12: 15 New
    +1
    Switch to the NPP market. In Finland, they did it - the French cannot finish building the Olkiluotto NPP, and the Finns need energy - Rosatom has signed a contract with the Finns for the construction of the NPP. And everything went like that without noise. The following goals are China and India. China has 4 unfinished buildings from Westinghouse, which will not build anything for anyone - India has at least 1 nuclear power plant in plans, and in general they need at least 10. Europe is in crisis with green energy - either gas or nuclear power plants are needed, again without options for we will go - no one else can)
    This is only for energy
  21. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 8 July 2020 12: 51 New
    +2
    In the framework of the current state of affairs in the Russian Federation, I believe that large-scale and effective modernization is impossible.
    As the author correctly noted, oil revenues are generated by an insignificant part of the population of the Russian Federation - in conjunction with monopolism and the “culture” of a business style (the coalescence of power and monopolists, corruption, de facto control over “as it were” independent state control bodies), “our” courts, etc.) we get a system in which hyper-incomes circulate, they are enough for the head of a not so large group of people and their offspring, who have the main gesheft. As with gas. As with nickel. As with other resources - including biological resources.
    On the one hand, such a system seems to be stable for itself - on the other hand, it is absolutely not stable for personalities. Today, a conditional oligarch gives a paw here and there, tomorrow Sauron's eye has come to him and he is already legally and illegally without pants, business and everything he has obtained.
    That is, we have a system in which, on the one hand, a small group of people has the opportunity to super-enrich themselves without much effort, on the other hand, the rules of this system change unpredictably, which does not guarantee such super-enrichment tomorrow. Here they live today - no one wants to plow more than others, knowing that tomorrow they can squeeze the result.

    The question of “how could one do it” and reflections on this topic have nothing to do with this alignment, because we are infinitely far from even starting the path of modernization, according to the most efficient roadmap. We (probably) would have to nationalize the resources (the task itself is tin), conduct the most complete account of their condition - and then go one of two ways - through state capitalism, encouraging the development of small and medium-sized businesses and the influx of technologies into the country (in many ways, China’s way ), or in a way more or less reminiscent of the EU’s path - (for example, of the Scandinavian countries) - I mean the perception of the final task - very calm, reasonable and unhurried privatization of those areas in which it will not work to have super-revenues without modernization (and an example of such areas we we observe today), super-profitable areas work for the interests of the state - but not for social programs or youngArabian socialism - but in the interests of developing the so-called "human capital" - we give out grants to study abroad in the country, we buy up patents, production lines, and startups of interest . In fact, all this is used within a plan comparable to the Japanese "Myoji Age" - in the interests of modernizing the country. I didn’t mention the Scandinavian path for nothing — it’s vitally important for us to maximize the separation of resource income and other economies, and at the same time to make sure that all sectors with super-incomes do not generate gesheft to specific people and not to abstract prosperity - but exclusively in the interests of the task of modernization our country.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 8 July 2020 17: 44 New
      +1
      Modernization of all fixed assets of Russia requires 89 trillion rubles - in the May decrees until 2024 the budget includes 13 trillion and separately attracting private investments of 13 trillion - let's see what happens at the end of the 24th year.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 8 July 2020 19: 34 New
        +1
        I have doubts that these funds will be spent wisely - modernization is different, it’s a very vague concept .. For example, they can “upgrade” old Soviet ambulances to slightly less old Japanese ones - and the money will heat up on this, and it seems like modernization isn’t argue.
        Reasonable modernization is, first of all, planning and goal-setting - objects in need are divided by the degree of exhaust from modernization in the short to medium term - additional selection of costs is carried out among the leaders - and finally an unambiguous priority is given to those areas in which modernization will bear fruit at the junction of two or more of such leaders.
        This is what is called flagships - their task in the medium and short term is to cover the modernization of less profitable areas due to this exhaust.

        Here, in our case, in the first, these directions are historically incorrectly defined (at least for the last 30 years), in the second, the exhaust does not accumulate in line with the further solution of development problems — it is stolen or immediately launched into certain adventures. Finally, in the third, issues of goal-setting are not dealt with by serious institutions (such as the analogue of the State Planning Commission) but by some devils, for the most part not even in specialized education.
        Finally, in our country at the highest level, they absolutely DO NOT know how to save money. This is an absolutely clinical situation, sometimes even worse than corruption and theft ..
  22. TochkaY
    TochkaY 8 July 2020 16: 03 New
    +1
    The author, why do you think that you can sell processed products with increased value? How do you get it done? There is so much produced in the world that shelves are breaking and there is nowhere to put the goods. And here you enter the market satisfied with yourself and your product in the hope of vparivat the same thing that is already in excess. And that is not all! You forgot about the sanctions. If you are not allowed to sell raw materials, why are they allowed to sell something else? The processing of raw materials, as well as other products, even agricultural, even industrial, we need. And in the light of the negative trends of the American poddies - the faster, the better. Therefore, you need to buy modern machines, technologies, etc., in order to provide ourselves with products and vital and consumer goods. Otherwise, you will remain with non-renewable resources and beans. By the way, they can be taken away if you relax. No, they can’t. They will be taken away.
    1. Knell wardenheart
      Knell wardenheart 8 July 2020 19: 48 New
      +1
      Over the past years, a hundred with the “bleeding” didn’t work out very well — then there was too much anxiety from the partisan terror, and any war risks not going according to plan — and then a complete bouquet — sanctions and expenses and an epic disgrace.
      Our main advantage is the conservation of resources, renewable electricity, our own (some kind of) scientific and technical school and a decent level of brain processing of the population (people are ready to tear themselves for salary three times lower than European). Possessing this, we could have long been able to do the same thing that China is doing now - to flood all neighboring markets with its technological consumer goods of all kinds, in those areas in which it is possible to rely on the above advantages. If we take the same PRC - with respect to the "hardworking Chinese" (cheap slave power tobish), we still have the advantage of cheap electricity (which is based on Deshman gas, powerful hydropower resources, our atomic resources, etc.), cheap resources and metals (the delivery of which we spend much less than our yellow-faced friends, forced to bring everything to themselves from different parts of the world). Finally - our scientific school, which is "sort of like" even more powerful than the Chinese (but we have already missed a number of areas).

      It should also be borne in mind that (not so long ago it was more relevant truth) we have at hand the CIS and the customs union (to what extent is all this a linden or an anachronism is an open question) - and therefore, in the design of which I speak, it would also be a good bonus in terms of earning and capturing markets.

      Another thing is that we all about this episode about .. lost in general and continue to lose, without even thinking about it. How is it in one good joke "Business in Russian - to steal a box of vodka - to sell, and to drink money (c)". The ratio of GDP to "trade" illustrates very well the essence of the problem on the other hand (not related to gouging)
      1. ycuce234-san
        ycuce234-san 11 July 2020 19: 12 New
        0
        It should also be borne in mind that (not so long ago it was more relevant the truth) we have at our side the CIS and the customs union (how much is all this linden or anachronism is an open question)


        You can begin to gradually introduce discounts on high-tech non-domestic manufactured goods and services such as the construction of nuclear power plants, bridge construction and the construction of mountain and underground tunnels, industrial electronics, defense industry products, etc. - starting to form a real market and real production connections, as opposed to the European one. And the prices of raw materials are gradually released into free float at the world level. True, the words that the "father" and the other heads of the participating countries, learned from such an insidious market plan, would be better not to imagine ...
        1. Knell wardenheart
          Knell wardenheart 11 July 2020 19: 54 New
          +2
          You see, this question is unfortunately a missed chance already. For twenty years, the CIS has looked into our mouths, figuratively speaking. After all, most of them there quickly played enough of this pristine nationalism, tasted all the charms of the 90s, unemployment, banditry, etc. - they looked towards Russia - someone went to work for us, someone went for permanent residence, their leaders ran into us, carried out these long pathos meetings, stinging crab for each other, portrayed unity, received some kind of gesheft. And so year after year, somewhere around 20 years. That is, in general, one generation.
          Around 2010 (somewhere earlier, somewhere later) the understanding has ripened that behind all this noodles - there is no our great organizing role. That the Russian economy or its organizational initiatives will no longer jump out of the box and spin everything in a dashing round dance of mutual benefit. That everything will be the same as before - but it will take longer to puff, depicting a certain iron community and solidarity. We are tired of looking in our mouths. Little by little, they began to “trick” the CIS out of the CIS - this is the fruit of the fact that during one generation we were unable to create an economy capable of crushing the markets of the commonwealth, our political structures were primitive and outdated - and were no longer able to keep politically, culturally in our field we slept through retention much earlier, when our agitprop almost completely began to work in the interests of preserving the power of Yeltsin and Co., and for the sake of this, all the dirt and chernukha that the Communists did or did not create in the USSR went into the furnace.
          We talked a lot like Cat Leopold, not offering anything real. Our role as an arbiter within the CIS was leveled over time, everyone is accustomed to having serious and, most importantly, profitable plans behind our spanking mittens and healthy speeches. We could not help to resolve a number of territorial graters between neighboring countries (someone would say that they shouldn’t, like this was their business) - but in fact these were signs of a gradual drain of leadership and the loss of business. Which finally took shape by 2010 (more likely even by 2008)

          Now we have NOT been interested in the real game for quite a long time - from 2012-2014 we are interested (as I understand it) in the formation of a certain fictitious structure, a kind of Potemkin Village, by building which we would try to break the system of European sanctions - and for this we try to be as tolerant as possible from the point of view of favoring European affairs in the CIS, we also do not interfere with China very much, because for this construction we also need China to show the EU how serious we are. What all this will be called doesn’t matter - the New CIS, the Customs Union, or something else - until 2010 we still had the opportunity to subjugate the CIS economically using different levers, after - we chose a different strategy, symbiotically aimed at interacting with the EU. In my opinion, this is a failed strategy - because our plan is sewn with white thread ..
          1. ycuce234-san
            ycuce234-san 11 July 2020 20: 07 New
            0
            someone went to work for us, someone for permanent residence


            In my opinion, this is a failed strategy - because our plan is sewn with white thread ..


            If they are going to live and earn money even now, then this makes economic sense even in the absence of targeted economic integration and even opposite aspirations.
            The main thing is not to try to fill the problem with money, creating inexpedient economic ties, that is, subsidies should be one-time and small, up to 5% of the market value of contracts maximum and uncomplicated in the rules for receipt, then what a conditional plant can sell with a subsidy in 1-3% to the CIS market, having won against a western competitor, literally on the last-last nozzle - next time it will be able to sell on its own. The plan is sewn with money and is trimmed with commercialism, therefore it will work.
            1. Knell wardenheart
              Knell wardenheart 11 July 2020 20: 40 New
              +1
              Now the construction is organized like this - in the CIS, EU / Asia / USA business is fumbling - they buy resources from the CIS (that is, what we could buy), attract the minds of the CIS (someone we could attract), draw the CIS countries into their monumental bargaining .projects (One Belt - One Way, etc.) either gradually (or not already gradually) redraw individual countries of the former CIS to their weapons standards and adapt to equip some kind of infrastructure or cooperation there (the situation with Georgia, Ukraine, and Central Asian countries objects already leased by the USA and used as a military infrastructure)

              The business of our neighbors as well as we buy a lot abroad for $$$, part of this $$$ covers, like ours, the sale of natural resources. The part that is covered by the sale of other products (including weapons or high-tech or the sale of services, long-term contracts, etc.) - in their case, is covered by hordes of zrobitschans who go to dump labor rates in our labor market, to our great joy bourgeoisie, thus reducing labor costs for themselves or even building some sort of black and gray scheme.
              What from the outside looks like some kind of good - in fact, the already acidic potential of economic modernization is seizing up, whether it is monetary, labor, innovation, which we have.
              But this makes it possible for both these states and our authorities to cheerfully report that cooperation within the post-Soviet space is blooming and smelling - they run into the camera again and press the crab (smearing some preferences behind closed doors), we again depict that we are at the head of fraternal peoples.

              But the money circulation is definitely not in our favor - the CIS markets are not saturated with our products, people in the CIS come here just for a short piece, work on not the most prestigious jobs that leave them with the worst impressions of our country. Most of the money they send to their homeland - which sells all this with us at $$$, which we extract by selling resources. Within this scheme, there is neither benefit to the population of the Russian Federation, nor wide benefits to the producers of the Russian Federation (not monopolists). Maybe I'm wrong and the situation is not so scary - but everything that I observe and hear fits very well into this picture.
              1. ycuce234-san
                ycuce234-san 11 July 2020 21: 23 New
                0
                Well, small-scale subsidization is normally integrated into this scheme. Subsidies in rubles on ruble projects. Industry is subsidized on both sides of the border, and specifically the one that is already slightly inferior in competition with the western one (those whose gap with the western one is very small in the eyes of the industrial consumer) and it is increasing commodity circulation in the ruble and not in the dollar, euro and yuan. People, having at least some kind of work, remain in their small homeland - migration flows are growing weakly, labor on both sides of the border is getting more expensive and the labor of migrants in the European Union is becoming more expensive, reducing the competitiveness of its enterprises.
                Specifically, the benefit of the bourgeoisie in the CIS is the expansion and stabilization of the ruble market, increasing their economic security. In Europe, they are invariably looked at as either by poor relatives, or as a grain grower by a pest and are constantly trying to lime.
                1. Knell wardenheart
                  Knell wardenheart 11 July 2020 21: 51 New
                  0
                  You reason logically rightly and that would be a good way of development and integration BUT the authorities of our country (for some reason) do not want to do this “in practice” - in the early 2000s there was some activity, not very long and that’s all. Further, we prefer some ostentatious loyalty and a stream of Deshmanian slaves. forces, long incoherent integration projects (like a union state with Belarus) is the peak of our creativity.
                  Trying to catch this logic, I come to the conclusion that our government does NOT really want us to be a superpower and our economy in the CIS to really compete with Western / Eastern economies. Because we (apparently) do not have professionals who can put on this in a kind of complex and mutually beneficial form, our bourgeoisie and elites do not want to be active competitors to the West / East in the CIS with their economic initiatives - probably because there really is no faith in our opportunity to succeed in this fight and organize everything in the best way. As they say - a bird is better in hand than a girl in the distance - here, by this logic, they are waiting for the arms of Europe and WE LOSE TIME. In the rhetoric of state propaganda, we see a completely different picture - but in reality it is like this - our elites have the idea of ​​integration and ecstatic symbiosis with the West (a la 90s) on the terms of somewhat greater rights at the table with jackets - for this we were ready to hand over the developed platform (and in fact they handed over) - and the matter does not go further, as far as I see.
                  As for the lost time - you are right somewhere else we could perhaps catch up. With more opposition. We are already under sanctions. Ukraine is no longer with us. Georgia is no longer with us. Is Armenia with us? Well, etc. Each of our external initiatives will now be looked at under a magnifying glass (after the events of 2014) - from the first half of 2000 a new generation of pro-Westernized nationalists has already managed to grow there, from the point of view of whose values ​​- we and our initiatives are the personification of "some kind of totalitarian game." And if in the early 2000s we could still work with this “soft power”, now we would have to pour in a lot more money, wait longer, experience more resistance from the elites, from the West, even greater misunderstanding of our elites who saw USSR 2.0 in the grave.

                  That's what I'm talking about .. and it's actually pretty sad. We can, but we won’t. Now I often come across this ..
  23. imobile2008
    imobile2008 8 July 2020 18: 26 New
    -3
    Quote: Svarog
    Quote: Vadim237
    This is how buyers and free markets for these other industries will appear - then they will have growth,

    Buyers will not appear, the product should appear competitive, and then buyers can be sought ..
    since the payback of these industries is too long, and the risks in this regard are maximum - the production of civil microprocessors in Russia as an example, its own sales market is too small, and the whole world is crammed with AMD and Intel, so they are not produced in Russia except for the military.

    It is necessary not to copy, but to be one step ahead .. then they will buy. But in order to be one step ahead, it is necessary to develop science, and in order to develop science, it is necessary to start with education .. And of course, state support ..
    Without a chance to catch up with intel and amd. only these companies spend the most of our state budget on development of the budget. And there are thousands of companies. And the political situation is such that specialists who understand this, go abroad and work in intellects. They do not want to work in an authoritarian state. And this is not done by 10%, not 30%, but by 100%. Only those specialists who implement the American software remain. And they earn money by re-labeling, from international to made in Russia
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 July 2020 01: 53 New
      +1
      Stop raving - especially by re-sticking labels of foreign products on Made in Russia - now everyone is trying to localize as much as possible because importing expensive pleasure from abroad and in terms of directions we are already doing our own components in the same way - we are developing new directions - and for you in everything in the world, whether it’s a car, a plane, a computer, a machine, or a smartphone — each such product is a production cooperation of a dozen companies from different countries.
  24. awdrgy
    awdrgy 8 July 2020 21: 53 New
    0
    Yes, it is necessary to develop high-tech engineering to abandon free gas oil revenues In short, work a lot Yes, we have almost all the managerial posts in the administration to do this or that (and not only managerial ones, there are such dumb kids) Do they work ??? Three times ha! ABOUT! For (on) them work four times ha! We need to show activity here and there so that we don’t stand out (anyway, will they pay more than a penny and a career? Is from the category of science fiction) And they can take it under the hood (well, this is their headache, they can handle it for now) And everything milk production is growing demography is also true with a minus sign Such collective collective sabotage is here both from above and from below) Just like Comrade Sukhov does (in the sense of torment, it’s better and vodka will help here)
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 9 July 2020 01: 55 New
      +2
      You will work shitty - you will be replaced by automation and robotics in production.
      1. awdrgy
        awdrgy 13 July 2020 14: 40 New
        0
        This is so far the “southern brothers” will not be many (because there is no holy place empty) And then “the living will envy the dead” And we pat from heaven) There seems to be something similar happening in the USA No?) In any case, this is what 19th century cowboys In a nightmare, she could not have imagined. But it’s so flowery.
  25. Simple
    Simple 9 July 2020 08: 15 New
    0
    Quote: from article
    [b] Does Russia need to abandon oil and gas exports:


    And will she (Russia) be allowed to abandon such exports?
    Building SP-2 then why - you can’t drive hydrogen through it.
  26. CBR600
    CBR600 9 July 2020 10: 05 New
    +1
    I do not argue that you need to build your own (tractor machines, etc.), I am only for it. But, in any project there is an economic component (not for those who calculated the installation of PAHT). Cost price. Here is a stump about which everything stumbles. The market average cost of materials goes off scale. Who-thread, in the summer, will say the cost of a kilogram of polypropylene, for example? Admit it to yourself, answer? Imagine how much a piece of this shit costs? And check, google. I think be surprised. By the way, the price has not changed since the 98th.
    _And how much energy should be burned to build something? So this golden tractor comes out. Why? Yes, because they sold us with giblets, for the sake of villas, yachts, bills and the opportunity to sell our minerals to them, for currency in your pocket. And there is nothing to comment on.
    Until we burn gas / oil for ourselves, nothing will change. And it should be free. This is how civilizations evolve, burning fuel. And the more the harness, the faster they develop.
    .. PS. I will add that if the materials are free, the whole world will open factories with us.
  27. Semenov
    Semenov 9 July 2020 11: 44 New
    +1
    The answer is known, reflections are superfluous. High value-added products are more profitable than raw materials. But the US also sells oil and gas and does not consider it shameful. Gosplan needed. And responsible people in it. And goals.
  28. imobile2008
    imobile2008 9 July 2020 12: 28 New
    0
    In 2050, Europe will completely abandon hydrocarbons.
  29. Valeriy Zaboristov
    Valeriy Zaboristov 11 July 2020 21: 16 New
    0
    In the 90s, our steam locomotive was put on the rails of the commodity economy and this, almost holy, was observed and is being observed. But this was the first stage of colonization. The second stage, or rather a blow, begins now, when our raw materials are no longer needed. There are planners, but there are also performers. Nevertheless, there is a way out, and not one !!! The first is the Deep Processing of Raw Materials. Iran, for 25 years, was able to catch up with Russia under sanctions, and then overtake it 10 times. Who today does not allow us to learn from Iran ??? You can study their experiences, in the end, take action! It is the actions that we lack. Second, only MO (!!!) can realistically, in the shortest possible time, organize the export of new peaceful products, which will immediately return to us what we lost from the decline in oil and gas exports. Moreover, the new product can exceed exports, and oil , and gas. In this case, to begin to act, it would be advisable immediately. You won’t have to wait long for the results.
    1. harpsichord
      harpsichord 12 July 2020 15: 52 New
      -1
      And who buy plastic bags?
  30. harpsichord
    harpsichord 12 July 2020 15: 50 New
    -1
    Quote: Civil

    No way. No panic, strictly numbers. Per 1000 able-bodied population, 15-59 in 2019 according to Rosstat 360 elderly people. Given the mortality of men, it turns out about 260-270 attendants per 1000 able-bodied citizens. By the way, this is the most faithful electorate of GDP. And the basis of all election commissions.) Be like a grandmother, keep the fate of the country in your hands)

    This is good for everyone. However, in the Far East, grass concrete tears
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjKS4-ZkwUA