Military Review

Economy without profit


Today there is a stormy debate about the causes and prerequisites of the so-called global economic crisis. The search for ways to resolve it is no less actively discussed. Note that the discussion about the presence or absence of this crisis has practically disappeared. The crisis situation as such is recognized, but no clear answers to the traditional “who is to blame” and “what to do” have been received so far.

In the information space, several stable structures have gradually developed, with the help of which a crisis situation is described. One of them: the clash of conventional globalists and conventional traditionalists, D. Trump and the mysterious Deep State, who is opposed to him, represented by the Democrats. Nationalists, owners of industrial capital, seem to be opposed to global financiers and owners of transnational corporations. The second stable construction concerns the description of the basic economic processes and postulates the thesis about the crisis of the industrial model of development, which has exhausted the possibilities and reserves for further extensive growth.

The convenience of these theses lies in the fact that, on the one hand, they reflect part of reality, on the other hand, they have good potential as a basis for a wide range of inferences and forecasts: from purely economic analysis to the work of political scientists and adherents of conspiracy theories, "conspiracy theories" and lovers to delve into the symbolism. The problem of these theses follows from their advantages: having become a kind of axioms, they, describing only a part of the whole, in advance model the direction and method of analysis. The decision tree is stretched within the specified vectors. Yes, we really see a clash of elites in the United States, but to what extent is the same D. Trump an anti-globalist in reality? This is still a huge question, as is the Chinese project, which is often presented as an example of economic nationalism.

One day an old Japanese monk was accused of molesting a young female. The old man was locked up and asked if he was doing wrong, to which the answer was received: "Is this so?" After a couple of days, the young lady felt ashamed, she came and told that she had told a lie, that she was mistaken. When the old man was released, they apologized to him, because now everything is clear: he did nothing, to which the answer was received: "Is that so?" The old monk's rhetoric seems to illustrate well the problem of the above theses.

The "end of the economy" adherents often point to a crisis in the system of interest rates. Is this so? Yes, in Russia, unfortunately, the interest rate has become a real brake on development, the rates are high, the processes are complicated, the consumer does not have sufficient solvency. But "there" interest rates on loan interest today often approach zero, and the consumer is solvent. Nevertheless, development really stops, the economies are not growing, and indeed there is no growth in consumption. For a long time, gatherings and gatherings of the powerful in closed communities and then political elites in the G7 / 8/20, Davos, Rome, Vienna and other "clubs" had one of the basic tasks of overcoming regional imbalances in economic development. In fact, it is quite understandable that such equalization programs were primarily intended to cover new markets with tight credit policies. Yes, their own production in these markets was jammed, however, they did not spare funds for injections into the consumer sector. Examples: double-circuit economy of the European Union, industrial symbiosis of China and the USA, Germany and China, etc. When they talk about the end of the era of extensive economic development, I would like to ask the question: are the reserves for consumption actually exhausted today, are the reserves in Latin America, India, Africa, Central Asia exhausted? Yes, the economic model is in crisis, but is it only and so much because of the impossibility of further expansion? Loan interest is the culprit of all the troubles or is the problem somewhere deeper?

To a person interested in history wars and armed forces, economic problems are close: all wars have economic reasons and prerequisites, but not every war leads to armed confrontation. One of the interesting features of the current situation is the fact that all participants in the geopolitical process are diligently avoiding direct armed conflicts, transferring them to the plane of "proxy wars". And it's not just that some of the defendants have nuclear weapons (it was also during Vietnam): today even "horseless" (in the sense of nuclear-free) states do not particularly strive to enter the path of direct clashes of the official armed forces. No matter how much some “hotheads and parties in the United States are encouraged to strike at Iran or Venezuela, the United States stubbornly avoids direct conflict. Although they have enough resources and funds for this, such conflicts themselves have always been a convenient way for Americans to solve problems in public finances.

France, Greece, Turkey and Egypt stand opposite each other, China and India, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Iran and Israel, but the hot phase, about which so many people write, they say, is about to begin, still no and no. The active actions of the parties are slowed down in Donbas, turning into an endless positional exchange. In Syria, the interests of dozens of large and small states converged, however, with all the political battles in the UN and the struggle of projects and special services, one cannot fail to notice that the presence of Russian troops there is the result of an albeit implicit, but quite real consensus of large forces, and the game there is going on according to certain rules that try not to break. Yes, there are conflicts and wars, weapons are shooting in the world, but the direct participation of states in an armed struggle with each other, even with the availability of resources and operational benefits, is hampered. The question is: by whom and why? How many economic prerequisites are there and what?

We are constantly confronted with what is sometimes popularly called cognitive dissonance (in fact, a contradiction of meanings). We are talking about national projects, and the entire world press is describing to us how nationally oriented Russian policy is, however, all governance is liberal in essence, method and result. At the same time, our liberals in some incomprehensible way quarreled with globalist-liberals there, in the "blessed" West, while being friends with China, the main sponsor of modern globalism, and looking with tenderness at the sanctions of D. Trump, the main "governor" of anti-globalism.

There are many examples of such dissonance of meanings. The strange epidemic that covered the world economies, for some reason, primarily affected the G20 countries and almost bypassed the state at a smaller level. Despite all the contradictions between the leading players, it was interesting to watch the remote meeting on oil production in March this year: it looked like an emergency meeting of the plant's board of directors, which received a thrashing from shareholders. The hand of "global institutions"? But look at these institutions, they actually stopped working. The big question remains: how, given the obvious and historically inevitable globalization of the economy, can we do without working world institutions? Uniform rules and regulations are needed.

In the author's opinion, today we are faced not with a natural, but with a man-made change in the economic model (the COVID-19 pandemic here simply acts as one of the tools) and the subsequent reinstallation of the institutions of global governance. In full agreement with Lenin's thesis: "before uniting and in order to unite, we must first decisively and definitely delimit ourselves." Economic clusters are forcibly separated in different directions for the purpose of subsequent revision, the formation of new rules, management institutions and a new system of commodity-money exchange.

With the initial consensus of the beneficiaries of this process, contradictions between the players at the lower levels are quite obvious, since in reality there is a battle not between traditionalists and liberals, but between several projects of the future liberalism of a new type. Who will represent their interests in the new institutions and what will be the size of options and bonuses for national management teams, what will be the “equity capital” of specific national elites in this global “trust” of a new post-industrial type?

However, why do the true beneficiaries need it? Why did they reach this consensus on the fundamental dismantling of not just an economic model, but a transition to a fundamentally new way of life? The reserves for the development of the old have not yet been exhausted, which means that there is a strategic contradiction that cannot be resolved without radical and root changes. The author wants to propose for discussion the following: such a contradiction is the question of profit, the main engine of the economy (and not only) since the times, perhaps, of Cain and Abel.

There are, by and large, two approaches to the profit factor. Relatively speaking, this is a modern monetary school and an old political and economic school. Each of the approaches has its own rational kernel, but each of them contains a number of contradictions. In the first case, profit is viewed as an organic, natural factor of economic activity, the limitation of which is an extremely negative process, since it neutralizes the main incentive for development.

From the point of view of the political economists of the Marxist school, profit is by nature the product of appropriating a part of surplus value, added labor, on which the owner of the means of production constantly saves. Thus, the issue of profit is closely linked to the issue of labor exploitation. Profit maximization in this case inevitably leads to contradictions between the owner and the hired worker, whose extra time constantly turns into the owner's profit.

The monetary school traditionally bypasses the simple question that the phenomenon of profit itself is really the result of an unequal and unequal exchange, if someone makes a profit during exchange, then someone gets a loss, which he will inevitably strive to compensate elsewhere. Including due to the exploitation of labor.

The classics of political economy, in turn, run into the factor of the growth of productive forces, because without profit it is not very clear how to expand and intensify an enterprise. The first say that free competition is a natural limiter of profit, the second - that in a capitalist economy, the profit factor is one of the causes of crises, and only a transition to a new formation is able to use this factor effectively. But neither the Soviet nor the Chinese economic systems were able to bypass the issue of profit as such (and did not seek to). It was established and planned within the framework of general and sectoral plans for the development of the national economy.

With what care the Marxists dug the theory of value “to holes”, with the same ease monetarists brushed aside the discussion of questions of value in principle. The world went through many stages (often very bloody) on the way to a single market for goods, labor and capital, from stock exchange houses and trading companies to financial groups of the XNUMXth century, which made money on all participants in the Napoleonic wars at the same time, building a prototype of a united Europe. The world has created emission systems, from those based on precious denominations to systems on the mass of commodities and stock markets. And each of them worked for one task: creating added value for expansion and turning it into profit.

Pre-industrial societies accumulated gold, industrial society accumulated profits, post-industrial society of the late XX - early XXI centuries. learned to create this profit "out of thin air", to print and draw, but by doing so, the post-industrial financiers neutralized the very essence of profit. As a result, the profit was not needed today. For the largest owners of capital, the concept of profit has ceased to matter. She has ceased to be a driving force.

If earlier profit was a source of expanded reproduction, then the further we go into the XNUMXst century, the less important it is for this process. One can reasonably say, yes, it has ceased to be the driving force for this layer of “top” owners (beneficiaries), but for everyone else it has not gone anywhere as the main motivating factor. But after all, it is the beneficiaries who have the printing press in their hands and it is they who regulate the exchange rates for basic products (hydrocarbons, steel, wood, grain, etc.), to which all other commodity exchange operations are tied. They are the actual ultimate owners of the basic means of production, they also print a loan for themselves to expand their capacities, and they already give the consumer a loan, for which he buys from them for their money the goods produced by them.

In fact, the pool of beneficiaries today itself regulates for itself the real and nominal value of assets, while having unlimited access to financial resources. The question arises: what is the point in this situation for this pool in profit as such? Profit really becomes unnecessary. Your money supply is limited, in fact, by the fact that the players who are on a lower level just insistently want to get this very profit, but the final owners of the process are no longer interested in this.

This thesis, at first glance, is very controversial, but only at first glance. We see a lot of examples of the so-called venture financing, behind which there is no profit and real potential for market trading. Liberal teams are waving flags of similar projects with appeals: look how "there" are invested in development, how many investments are in innovation! Indeed, you look and think: how people care about the future! However, after analyzing these projects, you begin to understand that they are strictly divided into two unequal parts. One investor is engaged in substantive and serious work, the other is easily ready to write off. Nevertheless, both the one and the second part do not pursue the task of maximizing profit. Moreover, even financial institutions ceased to pursue this goal, those who for centuries derived income from the difference in exchange rates and from the issuance of loans. Since the end of the last century, the distribution of money has become the norm, rates are falling, and in a situation with a pandemic, the issuance of funds becomes almost free of charge.

An interesting problem arises: can the previously created institutions of global governance really work in such a situation? No, since they were created and conceived as centers for the formation of rules for the distribution of profits, as emission centers for the issuance of funds for subsequent profit. What institutions are needed? The answer will probably surprise: an analogue of the Soviet State Planning Commission. And this is the prototype of this "State Planning Commission" of the post-industrial type, we observed during the March meeting on oil prices.

It is unlikely that it will be a secret that even at the present stage of development of productive forces, only artificial inhibition of automation and robotization of production is the reason that the mass of jobs continues to be jobs themselves. For many years, both in the United States and in Europe, it has been easier to simply distribute funds to personal accounts than to fight for providing real employment for the population. The higher the level of the post-industrial economy, the higher the level of fictitious employment becomes. Yes, Russia is showing its unique features here, according to various estimates, our level of such “employment” ranges from 12% to 18% of the working-age population and continues to grow, although our economy has not even knocked at the door of a post-industrial society.

And in this situation, what should the beneficiaries of the economy do? In the post-industrial society, a lot of fictitious projects and fictitious jobs are created, in pre-industrial and industrial societies - overpopulation and real unemployment, since the level of world consumption has already reached its peak. No matter how many different "clubs" tried to work out mechanisms for distribution and regional economic equalization, none of the projects actually worked to the end, to the result.

In this regard, the transition from a society of profit to a society of distribution of benefits seems quite logical. Only now the criteria for access to benefits are gradually changing. Such a society moves from the ability to work and productivity to correct thinking, perception of the world, and correct activity in the information space. We are inevitably moving towards the fact that the criteria for assessing an individual will soon be based on his activities on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc. Your position in life meets the criteria - there is access to benefits, distributed by levels, does not correspond - there is no access or it becomes limited. Look at the notorious OGE and USE. Pupils do not learn, they train to answer certain questions correctly and literally.

If you answer the questions correctly, you have access, if you think freely, you don't. Actually, all electronic platforms today are only engaged in collecting social information, processing it and developing access criteria. A huge experiment is being unfolded all over the world to control the mental activity of societies and individuals. Artificial intelligence is a means of a new system, post-industrial institutionalism, a society of general distribution, but the criteria and principles of this society, conceived by the beneficiaries of the economy, may turn out to be far from rosy.
Photos used:
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Asad
    Asad 20 September 2020 05: 36
    Yes, I studied badly at school for a long time! Comrades! Translate please !
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 20 September 2020 05: 54
      You are not alone! I don’t get the same shit!
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Aleksandr1971
        Aleksandr1971 20 September 2020 06: 35
        General conclusion. This article is a mess instead of music.
        There is a risk that readers, seeing special economic terms, will respect the author of the article and start trying to delve into its content. I will make a comment, wasting my time and saving readers from wasting their time.

        The author correctly started the story by pointing out the problem with profitability in economies. Although he did not indicate that the crisis is associated with a new phenomenon - the impact on the economy of anti-epidemic government measures.

        But in the future, the story went beyond the fact that there is a reason for the lack of profit or low profit on average in the economy.

        The viciousness of the readings presented is concentrated in the following three directions.

        1. The author operates with incorrect political and economic calculations and pseudo-economic terms invented from the ceiling.

        Thus, the author invented non-existent political economic categories such as modern monetary theory and the old political economic school.
        Monetary theory, or monetarism, is almost the oldest, and by no means modern, economic theory, rooted in the 17th century.
        The concept of the old political economy school does not exist at all. There is the concept and category of "classical economic theory", which has its origins in the works of A. Smith and D. Ricardo. And also there are offshoots of this theory that have been forming since the beginning of the 20th century.
        So the term "old political economy school" is nonsense.

        Also, the author invented and did not explain the terms “profit society and society for the redistribution of goods”. But these are the terms with which the author connects his main conclusion on the article.

        2. To make a statement about the non-profitability of the economy, one must at least show the readers that in fact, in the world, economies have become non-profitable.

        I will assume that there is no profit in the pocket of the author, from which he "fiddled" on the Internet such conclusions that supposedly everyone is bad. In fact, all this is confirmed or refuted only with figures for different economies of the world and over the years in dynamics.

        Any economy is characterized by crises, and the capitalist economy in particular. So, the current reduction does not mean that it will always be so.
        Contrary to what the author of the article focuses on, a low lending interest is not the reason for low profits. This is part of the economic life of Western countries, but not the rest of the world. The article actually contains an unsubstantiated claim to declare the lack of profit in the whole world (since the article includes both the countries of the West, East, and Africa)

        The thesis of the author of the article about a strange economy that has covered only the West is easily refuted by the fact that only in the West (and 3-5 countries of East Asia) the service sector is developed. Namely, the service sector suffered the most from antiquity measures. Therefore, the coronavirus epidemic has less affected the underdeveloped countries.

        The author writes about the existence of certain true beneficiaries who supposedly reached a consensus on dismantling the economic model. This suggests that the author clearly suffers from the psychiatric idea of ​​a world behind the scenes and a secret world government. Perhaps this is the Bilderberg Club, or the wise men of Zion.

        3. The main flaw of this creation is the lack of logic in thinking, and as a result, in presentation. The author jumps from thought to thought.

        So in the article there is a jump from pointing to the theory of value to pointing to the theory of profit. Then immediately, without explanation, on the accumulation of gold, the accumulation of profits, then words about emission centers appear. Then suddenly a statement was made that the beneficiaries (probably behind the scenes) have unlimited access to finance, and therefore they do not need profit. Their author concludes that it is possible to keep useless and unprofitable positions and jobs. And that the consequence of this should be the transition from a society of profit to an economy of redistribution of benefits. Moreover, what are these terms - "society of profit and society of redistribution of benefits" the author does not disclose.
        The author writes: "From the ability to work and productivity, such a society goes on to correct thinking, perception of the world, correct activity in the information space."

        Output. The author of the article clearly has a higher education, but not an economic education, but the main thing is that the author of the article has clinical problems with mental work.
        1. nikolaevskiy78
          20 September 2020 09: 15
          Thanks for the detailed comment.
          I will try to answer.

          First, there is no juggling of terms here. For the simple reason that no one at the moment knows how to properly characterize the socio-economic model that is now * in my opinion, man-made) is being implanted in the world. It has no universally accepted wording. Well, let's call it, for example, "post-non-classical society." What's the point? Will it be easier or clearer? Therefore, everyone is free to make attempts at comprehension on a terminological basis convenient to him.

          Second. Today, the use of the terms "old political economic school" and new "monetary school" are permissible. I already wrote what their conceptual difference is - in the study of cost. Modern Economics does not study value, like the students who study it. This is the current conceptual approach.

          Third. I don’t know where you got the "profit theory" from me. The concept of profit is an organic part of the theory of value in political economy. In the modern approach, the very phenomenon of value in general and even profit in particular is not the subject of research.

          You can call the owners of property and assets that are not at the top of the "food pyramid" as it is convenient for you, it is convenient for me "beneficiaries". But the essence of the process will not change from this. Since modern science cannot offer either a concept for overcoming the crisis, or even a coherent terminology, these very "beneficiaries" simply deploy the model there and in the way they see fit, and the terms and definitions do not interest them from the word at all. We are trying to systematize these phenomena, and they are simply dismantling the old model and will assemble a new one.

          Next, about the service sector. Well, for some, the service sector suffered, while for some, production stopped. The important thing is that this crisis is man-made and it is quite difficult not to notice it. Have you ever seen in history that the economy was forcibly driven into a recession and all transactions, both financial and logistics, were inhibited? What kind of owners are they who take away such a longed-for profit from themselves? So the thesis "economy without profit" is indirectly confirmed here as well. Any owner will fight for profit and for business, for his own business. And these "beneficiaries", instead of trying to stop the recession by all means, are deepening it themselves.

          Well, about the "wise men of Zion", we will leave it on the conscience of the author of the commentary. It is impossible to deny the existence of the owners of the capital, but to present it as if I wanted to present them as "the wise men of Zion," well, it is not very reasonable. If only because there is not a drop of conspiracy in the article.
        2. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 20 September 2020 15: 20
          The author frantically tries to invent some explanation of what is happening now in economics and politics outside of historical materialism and dialectics. Plus, come up with an aby-communist future. Naturally, it turns out indistinct chaotic shit.
        3. vVvAD
          vVvAD 20 September 2020 23: 46
          Quote: Aleksandr1971
          Any economy is characterized by crises, and the capitalist economy in particular.

          Quote: Aleksandr1971
          Namely, the service sector suffered the most from antiquity measures.

          Undoubtedly, not only the service sector suffered, but also all non-critical for the existence and development of societies of production: any crisis sets the brain, revealing what is really important. When it comes to the survival of a person, family, state, it becomes not up to the good in the form of virtual products and goods, without which you can live perfectly well. That's all.
        4. Motorist
          Motorist 21 September 2020 22: 34
          Quote: Aleksandr1971
          To make a statement about the non-profitability of the economy, one must at least show the readers that in fact, in the world, economies have become non-profitable.

          I will not speak for the whole of Odessa, but here is an example from my industry: a container ship of 1300 boxes makes 6000 a day (and it does not work all year round!).

          salary - 2000
          food, oil, little things - 600-1000
          budgetary expenses (spare parts, repairs) - 1000-1500
          the rest is credit and amortization.

          The calculation, of course, is rough, but the order is correct. In general, work "for food". hi
      3. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 20 September 2020 08: 19
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        ......! I'm not the same shit ....!
        I have read to the explanation about the cognitive dissonance and decided to take a break for a few hours. Think it over, maybe still look at the article ...
        This cognitive dissonance is called differently by different people. I spoke here about ambiguity, duplicity. Or the desire to sit on 2 chairs.
        When using the socialist heritage, in property, political, social terms, it is impossible to disrespect the USSR and its achievements (and even more so to lie and slander). Otherwise, worsening for the country in all directions.
        1. Lexus
          Lexus 20 September 2020 17: 36
          Otherwise, worsening for the country in all directions.

          What, in fact, is taking place today.
          1. Reptiloid
            Reptiloid 20 September 2020 18: 23
            Hello Alexey! It is good that now this contradiction is often mentioned. However, sitting on 2 chairs continues.
            1. Lexus
              Lexus 20 September 2020 18: 52
              More like floundering in its own "liquid".
      4. krops777
        krops777 20 September 2020 09: 02
        You are not alone! I don’t get the same shit!

        And what is not clear on the face of the crisis of overproduction, and there is simply no one to buy in such a quantity of goods and for what, so they figure out how to stimulate demand from the banal distribution of money to the creation of virtual jobs, in which Russia has clearly succeeded in the state apparatus and state companies.
      5. Civil
        Civil 20 September 2020 11: 20
        Quote: ASAD
        Yes, I studied badly at school for a long time! Comrades! Translate please !

        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        You are not alone! I don’t get the same shit!

        The meaning is simple:
        It will be worse, but this is not due to the incompetence of the government and the Central Bank, but because the world has changed laughing
    2. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 20 September 2020 06: 11
      The author says we will soon come to communism, but he does not say when, the capitalists are not enemies, they are trying for the people, in such a way, in short, as everyone at the top says to the people: It remains a little to be patient and a bright future will come !!! smile
      1. Plantagenet
        Plantagenet 20 September 2020 09: 42
        "It remains a little to be patient and a bright future will come !!!"

        "The American economist Jeffrey D. Sachs, one of the policymakers that cut Mongolia's real wages in half, suggested in Mongolia's The Economist that he specialize in computer software. Because the World Bank's theories live happily in a kingdom where it doesn't matter if Sachs proposed this strategy with the best of intentions, but he missed one detail: apart from the capital, only 4% of Mongolians had electricity at home. These people had no money for computers or teachers to teach them to work with them. "
        Erik Reinert "How Rich Countries Got Rich"
    3. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 20 September 2020 06: 45
      Quote: ASAD
      Yes, I studied badly at school for a long time! Comrades! Translate please !

      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      You are not alone! I don’t get the same shit!

      It just wasn't filled in:

    4. Keyser soze
      Keyser soze 20 September 2020 08: 59
      I'm an economist, but I'm sorry, I didn't understand anything ...
      1. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 20 September 2020 15: 24
        You shouldn't have understood, but felt. laughing
        1. Lexus
          Lexus 20 September 2020 17: 42
          And "treat with understanding" (C) lol
    5. Sotskiy
      Sotskiy 20 September 2020 17: 13
      Quote: ASAD
      Yes, I studied badly at school for a long time! Comrades! Translate please !

      I am translating. The era of the electronic concentration camp is coming, in which the degree of loyalty to the system will mean access to benefits.
      1. g1washntwn
        g1washntwn 22 September 2020 09: 15
        Quote: Sovetskiy
        the degree of loyalty to the system will mean access to benefits

        In this case, "electronic" is just a new form of control of this loyalty.
        For an experiment, you can even now come out with protests that contradict the current agenda in your country and then watch how your personal income quickly flows into the sand.
        The whole question is not in profit, but in the distribution of goods. While some want a little more than others, there can be no talk of any fair assessment of labor.
        1. Sotskiy
          Sotskiy 22 September 2020 09: 20
          Quote: g1washntwn
          While some want a little more than others, there can be no talk of any fair assessment of labor.

          I agree. Apparently, this is why a new person was brought up in Soviet Russia on equal principles of distribution of goods. The current system does not dispose to this in any way.
  2. Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 20 September 2020 06: 24
    The world has come to the brink when the profit is simply nowhere to go, because the market turned out to be limited in capacity and full. Financiers began to make money out of money; the production process in this model became redundant. Money has ceased to function as a measure of value, turned into beautiful candy wrappers. The transition to a different formation becomes an objective necessity.
    1. bar
      bar 20 September 2020 08: 30
      Briefly and to the point. I agree with you and the author. There is no point in kicking your ass to make money if you can just print it. Or, at worst, just make this money directly from money, for example, as bankers and stock speculators do. Bypassing the creation of industries, jobs, the release of goods. "Violinist is not needed" sad
      1. depressant
        depressant 20 September 2020 13: 41
        Colleagues Mikhail m and bar, I don't know how it is abroad, but I think your approach to assessing the situation in relation to our country is correct.
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 20 September 2020 07: 05
    If you answer the questions correctly, you have access, if you think freely, you don't.
    .... It is logical ...
    1. depressant
      depressant 20 September 2020 14: 54
      It's like with mice: I pressed the red button - electric shock; clicked on green - food. They learn quickly. But what they think about the situation in which food is obtained by pressing a button is not known.
    2. vVvAD
      vVvAD 20 September 2020 23: 05
      Not viable, although, no doubt, the owners of the Western world really want it. Westerners and some of our elites have already decayed morally and in many ways already intellectually. The brain trusts of the society described by the author, clearly divided into uneducated hedonistic masses and educated, but no less corrupted elites, will be overthrown by a society with an elite mass education as feudal (and we are talking about a new form of feudalism) were overthrown by industrial ones - due to the superiority in mass in the first the case of production, based on the growth of production forces, and in the considered - ideas and their quality. Already overturned. The example of our country's opposition to the united military and economic power, the propaganda machine of the West is very indicative.
      A society without profit should be created, but on different foundations.
      1. nikolaevskiy78
        20 September 2020 23: 59
        I agree that the new society should be created on a qualitatively different basis. But the question is, where to get this mass of individuals with a massive and at the same time elite education, if the entire education system, what we have, what "they have" is designed to give the right answers to the right questions? Indeed, even the very formulation of the question in a different form than is already accepted by the attitudes is sedition.
        At the same time, "there" is tougher than ours. While. But soon they will reach us - the process is already underway. And in our country, a new generation already answers the right questions correctly, but simply does not answer the wrong ones, since such questions simply cannot exist - they have no place in the thinking system.
    3. vVvAD
      vVvAD 21 September 2020 07: 27
      And, what is most interesting: judging by the current trends, this will not be recorded anywhere in the public domain, and more "we have democracy, son," and such a society will continue to educate hypocritical supporters. But also no less sophisticated opponents participating in all these groups and meeting all these unwritten criteria - "ideal members", honest with themselves and their secret community, receiving maximum resources to fight the system. Fahrenheit 451 and Equilibrium are the future of this society. And if we take historical analogies, then the conspiracy in the SS.
  4. evgen1221
    evgen1221 20 September 2020 07: 07
    As they come up with what sauce to cross the cap and comm model of development, so permanent crises will disappear by 70%. But because there are many over the rich and greed is limitless, then until some people start flying in on the hat from the whole team, this will not happen. And then China could make such a not sickly bloc of companions on this topic as strange, and then jump into the future. I am silent about the corporation of the Russian Federation, we can already fix something unfortunately by mass executions. Well, the authorities will not be engaged in education and and the herd is more than satisfied, dear such feudalism.
    1. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 20 September 2020 15: 27
      Quote: evgen1221
      How will they come up with what sauce to cross the cap and comm development models

      You don’t understand the question. This is stupidly impossible. For one thing denies the other. And communism is born precisely as a denial of capitalism.
      1. evgen1221
        evgen1221 20 September 2020 16: 57
        Nearby China is successfully crossing a hedgehog with a snake. Ie communism and capitalism is more accurate than grafting the strengths of both systems. What hinders others? Anyway, any copronation by planning is alive (the state plan is not). You will see that after covid we will hear more about the theory of symbiosis of both models and without different isms.
        1. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 20 September 2020 19: 51
          There is no communism there. There is ordinary National Socialism. Let you first understand the issue, and then you will draw far-reaching conclusions.
          1. evgen1221
            evgen1221 21 September 2020 12: 59
            It doesn't matter what the name of the cat is, the main thing is to catch mice! In fact, nothing changes in your answer - the Chinese maneuver and try to take the best from both systems. We are .... preservation of the folded state, arranging for eternal eternal without the slightest attempts to go somewhere. Here, Gabon is already ahead, stability can be very stable at the graveyard.))
  5. nikvic46
    nikvic46 20 September 2020 07: 23
    Let the author forgive me for my illiterate approach to issues. To dissociate ourselves, one must have a left front. This is not the case at the moment. All leftists approach new forms of capitalism by old standards. And there are enough contradictions to globalism. No matter how we treat Platoshkin, he best of all caught the new trend in what is happening. He actually has knowledge of history and the ability to think analytically. Judge Asmi. China does not consider globalists to be a tuned state. Its intentions are considered international. This is only suitable for ideology, but not for the economy. Once again I apologize for intruding on this difficult issue.
    1. nikolaevskiy78
      20 September 2020 09: 51
      I understand this "delimitation" as follows.

      The supranational institutions built earlier have shown their inefficiency. Subjectively, they did not establish general rules, but created rules for the purpose of self-enrichment and within the framework of the concept of the United States as the only center of power. And objectively - without profit, the meaning of such institutions in the old form simply disappears.

      The delimitation takes place into several economic "clusters", sometimes they are also called future currency zones. These clusters will then have to work out new rules and create new institutions and work out a new world currency.
      1. g1washntwn
        g1washntwn 22 September 2020 09: 21
        Quote: nikolaevskiy78
        The delimitation takes place into several economic "clusters", sometimes they are also called future currency zones. These clusters will then have to work out new rules and create new institutions and work out a new world currency.

        And now guess from three times where the legs of the so-called. cryptocurrencies? wink
        1. nikolaevskiy78
          22 September 2020 21: 03
          There is a persistent feeling that a test game by large players was started with cryptocurrencies. View and "feel" the topic. When the game began to go out on an independent track and break away from the "planned tasks", to go on an independent voyage, it was cut off quite sharply. At the same time, as usually happens, those who stood at the beginning of the test (pyramid) raised, in general, quite good money. Those who did not make it to the beginning, as usual, lost. But, apparently, for the customers of this test, the income that the primary players received is the "acceptable level of costs" for the experiment.
          1. g1washntwn
            g1washntwn 23 September 2020 06: 45
            Quote: nikolaevskiy78
            a test game was started with cryptocurrencies

            Exactly. But my IMHO, there is still a long way to the final of the game, cryptocurrencies played like a pyramid, yes, but it was a local injection, just to "feel" the opportunity. As a token in the global batch of "crypto dollars" has not yet been played, the level of digitalization and control is still insufficient.
    2. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 20 September 2020 15: 29
      Platooshkind caught what? What can you get up on the left hype? Yes, he caught it well. And he sells his demagoguery to frankly stupid and naive people.
  6. Gardamir
    Gardamir 20 September 2020 08: 51
    What is described in the article economics. But don't go deep. Read the last two paragraphs. Here's what to discuss.
  7. A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 20 September 2020 09: 17
    From the "Statement of the editors of Iskra" (1900), written by V. I. Lenin.
    In original:
    “Before we unite, and in order to unite, we must first decisively and definitely separate ourselves.”

    The meaning of the expression: the union will be lasting only when people with common goals and interests become its participants. To do this, you need to "dissociate" from those who do not meet this condition and cannot be a member of this association
    1. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 20 September 2020 15: 31
      More precisely, to clearly define what interests coincide and what do not coincide.
  8. Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 20 September 2020 09: 34
    Russian and non-Russian billionaires from FORBS added their wealth during the quarantine - that's the profit.
    For the rest, it goes away. Salaries are the same, but in stores everything has risen in price ...
  9. Engineer
    Engineer 20 September 2020 12: 28
    Such a concentrate of illiteracy as that of the author is not often found even in VO.
    This thesis, at first glance, is very controversial, but only at first glance. We see a lot of examples of so-called venture financing, behind which there is no profit and real potential for market trading.

    Does the author even understand what he is talking about? Maybe he should go to startup presentations?
    I give a hint. The very first question that potential investors ask is "show the market"
    One investor is engaged in substantive and serious work, the other is easily ready to write off.

    90 percent of startups die early on. Even if the selection is carried out in special incubators with the help of business accelerators. Startups that have shown non-viability are written off.
    In fact, the pool of beneficiaries today regulates for itself the real and nominal value of assets, while having unlimited access to the financial resource.

    Oops. it turns out that all exchanges are just fiction. All value is determined by the world behind the scenes.

    From the point of view of the political economists of the Marxist school, profit is by nature the product of appropriating a part of surplus value, added labor, on which the owner of the means of production constantly economizes. Thus, the issue of profit is closely linked to the issue of labor exploitation.

    Perhaps I will hurt someone, but this approach is outdated completely and irrevocably. The modern economy is a sales economy. Marketing costs very often exceed development costs, and sometimes even production costs. Profit is determined by sales. Marketing plays a key role.
    The classics of the Marxist approach did not know marketing, therefore, they are not suitable for describing the realities of today.
    The classics of political economy, in turn, run into the factor of the growth of productive forces, because without profit it is not very clear how to expand and intensify an enterprise.

    The classics of political economy had to study the Tesla motors case of how to develop without profit.
    1. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 20 September 2020 15: 45
      Quote: Engineer
      The modern economy is a sales economy.

      So today they came up with that dollar to the one who invented 10 to the one who made and 100 to the one who sold? Here it is. Well, ok, and what is there so radically undermining obscurity? laughing
      Quote: Engineer
      The classics of the Marxist approach did not know marketing, therefore, they are not suitable for describing the realities of today.

      Also, Marx did not have an iPhone and did not rap. Will there be any objective criticism or will you slide down to an appeal to the individual and yell that Marx is a Russophobe?

      Quote: Engineer
      The classics of political economy had to study the Tesla motors case of how to develop without profit.

      And what can this case without a handle show us?
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 20 September 2020 15: 52
        To begin with, you are here
        1. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 20 September 2020 16: 00
          When there is nothing to say, people usually appeal to the personality. They start talking about morality, etiquette and other husk. A typical sign of a demagogue. Less pathos is my close, distant foe. I don't care about him.
    2. nikolaevskiy78
      20 September 2020 17: 05
      The author himself gave presentations of "startups".

      The stock exchange is not a fiction. But, if you really think that the exchange is a free and unlimited action, where sellers and buyers free from conventions set a price, market and competitive, the true yardstick of everything, I don’t know))).

      First of all, the "classics" did not know that value would become a fictitious category, and capital could not be increased in the process of expanding production, but simply draw and write off. And it's not about marketing, it's just a cost item.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 20 September 2020 17: 19
        The author himself gave presentations of "startups".

        Then why write nonsense?
        But, if you really think that the exchange is a free and unlimited action, where sellers and buyers free from conventions set a price, market and competitive, the true yardstick of everything, I don’t know))).

        No need to juggle, the exchange is influenced by many factors. But the stories about how the beneficiaries themselves regulate the value of stock assets is nonsense with a bias towards conspiracy.
        First of all, the "classics" did not know

        First of all, the classics danced from production, they did not study the concept of demand. At all.
        And it's not about marketing, it's just a cost item.

        Marketing is about working with demand. It is marketing that determines the market value of large companies in the first place. This is brand strength, reputation, expectations. You can say as much as you like that any Apple is not worth a trillion, but this is a speculative reality and a marketing result.
        PS YOU are aware that in the modern concept of product development, the marketing department usually sets both the price and the cost price.? That is, marketing is the king and god of the modern economy.
        1. nikolaevskiy78
          20 September 2020 23: 29
          As a former marketing director, I would very much welcome such a scheme. It's so beautiful to set both a price and a cost bar. But in reality, everything is much simpler.
          How will marketing set the cost bar? You can promote your "Wishlist" as much as you like, but the cost price is not set in the office. ... This is a complex and compromise design work, where all the services of the enterprise are engaged and marketing in this case acts as a design department that coordinates different services, considers different options, but it will not replace either the production department, or the chief engineer service, or become a mechanic Kulibin, not will become a marketer and deputy chief technologist and his services. The grapes are sweet, but the reality is sour.
          And the fact that the final prices for the levels of the distribution system marketers offer, yes. The fact that they work with demand is also true. But target cost? Forgive me, there are wishes, but there is a reality and the same marketer must live in this reality, otherwise he will lead the enterprise to a dead end.

          It seems to me that you have some kind of idealization of the current economic model. Such a legacy "from Economics", albeit in an implicit form. But in the article I actually mention that the reserves of this model have not yet been exhausted. However, this model is forcibly (and this is already an almost obvious fact) "demolished. The question is why and why. Well, I am trying to give an answer.
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 20 September 2020 23: 59
            How will marketing set the cost bar? You can promote your "Wishlist" as much as you like, but the cost price is not set in the office.

            It is installed in the office. Everything is very simple . The marketers determined the selling price, market size, and the required ROI. With such parameters, the cost is obtained by itself by the method of elementary calculations. ... Either we accept it or there is no point in launching the product.
            Engineers can bargain and create a priority matrix by cutting / lightening functionality. I personally had a case when it was necessary to optimize the process in order to keep within 20 thousand of the cost price in order to reach the required profit indicators. They took out my brain for 3 months and I dropped it from 60 to 22 thousand due to optimization of both the project and technologies. The actual cost of production was 25-26 thousand. I was given a prize (small laughing ) and said that for the next batch you need 14 thousand cost. Then I had to study the production sites in China
            And you say does not install ...

            It seems to me that you have some kind of idealization of the current economic model.

            There is no idealization. But she has a clear plus - the accelerated passage of business processes.
            However, this model is forcibly (and this is already an almost obvious fact) "demolished. The question is why and why. Well, I am trying to give an answer.

            Your article is objectively bad. But since I had the courage to answer the critics, I stop all assaults. Nowadays, not everyone dares to communicate with readers.
            1. nikolaevskiy78
              21 September 2020 00: 17
              Well, good or bad are subjective assessments. And any assessments are necessary and important. Criticism, even very subjective, is objectively useful, since some ideas are addressed to the reader and it is imperative to conduct a dialogue. KMK.

              Engineers, of course, and production workers also find it easier to overestimate the cost of design work and to overwhelm any undertaking and new products, than to “fire” for days on optimization and what can be squeezed out of the production site. However, what you called it is not a cost setting, but a search for compromise ways. At a normally built enterprise or holding company, these processes of searching for optimal compromises are put on normal administration rails and the system itself is aimed at finding the best options, alas, at other enterprises, no. And some lose markets, others and in a crisis get them at the expense of others. To whom the war, and to whom the mother is dear. For a good marketer, a crisis is an opportunity for the sales market to grow, to hell with it, the market as a whole is falling. For a bad falling market, this is a disaster, because it is not clear what to offer and what to do.

              Only the material is not about that a bit. Still, there are different levels of government. At their level, directors can offer capital owners whatever they want and the scheme is always plus or minus one. The only problem is that if earlier these "beneficiaries" listened to proposals and even thought about it, now they are simply not interested in this in principle. No, of course, the forms of decision-making and schemes for "covering markets" will persist for a long time, and offers to investors will be made traditionally. However, this does not mean that the current system, the concept itself, is not dismantled. Dismantle. It has already begun and now there is simply a struggle between projects and project teams for a place in the future. Not liberals and conservatives, not industrialists and financiers, without "isms" and terminology.
              1. Engineer
                Engineer 21 September 2020 11: 45
                However, what you called it is still not a cost setting, but a search for compromise ways

                It is the setting of the cost price. The cost price in the given example is the target indicator released by the marketing department.
                ... The only problem is that if earlier these "beneficiaries" listened to proposals and even thought about it, now they are simply not interested in this as a principle

                And here it works
                Still, there are different levels of government.

                "beneficiaries" is the top-level strategy. Corporate. There are determined the industries in which the activity will take place, total investments, diversification, etc.
                A specific market and a specific product is a lower-level competitive strategy. Most likely, the proposals coming from this level will not interest the "beneficiaries" - the scale is not the same

                However, this does not mean that the current system, the concept itself, is not dismantled. Dismantle

                Where can you see it? An example? The Big Five works in the old paradigm, everyone else looks up to the leaders.
                1. nikolaevskiy78
                  21 September 2020 12: 24
                  Isn't what is happening on the markets a direct and man-made dismantling of the system - the destruction of the very principles of goal-setting, the dismantling of institutions and the revision of the principles of their work?

                  Who is now generally speaking on the topic of "regional alignment", and this is actually what all these "clubs" have been gathering for about 35 years. Such processes without consensus of this very "pool of beneficiaries" would simply be impossible. Of course, no one will ever explicitly read out the word "dismantling the system", exactly the opposite, just the opposite will be said. But the result is already visible to too many.

                  So a really conceptual turn had to take place. Didn't you notice that in fact no states can wage traditional wars today? Who "gives them a hand"? It's also beneficial in the end.

                  All this does not mean that tomorrow there will be a new era of "redistribution". It is obvious that the dismantling of the old exchange system - basic commodities \ reserve currencies \ credit policy will take place in the form of similar COVID-19 stress tests. It's just that the fight is going on for what each national elite will receive within the framework of the future share capital in the new world CJSC - corporation. Russia is trying to milk something there, the US does not want to give up its share to China, the EU does not yet understand where and how much they will get, and the lower elites are also attaching their seats to this new "Roman Senate" - even sit in the hall on a reclining chair meetings.
                  Because it is not the question of profit that already stands, but the question of the value of assets as such in the new formation. If earlier capitalization depended on profitability parameters, now it is already a virtual category. Few people care about real profitability. What worries? Market coverage, not profitability. Market share is all - profitability is secondary. It didn't start today. These processes are already many years old, they are just now being forcedly accelerated.
        2. Motorist
          Motorist 21 September 2020 23: 08
          Quote: Engineer
          the marketing department usually sets both the price and the cost bar

          I am not an economist, but I can underestimate the cost of work plus spare parts by an order of magnitude on my "site" (literally or so). And no marketer will dissuade me to stop dumping. bully
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 21 September 2020 23: 20
            If you are a third party production, then your company will lose profit on such focuses.
            If production and development are within the same company, then the marketer will not persuade anyone. The production manager will be fired, and the new one, if not durak, will carry out a cleanup
            1. Motorist
              Motorist 21 September 2020 23: 31
              Hello engineer. hi I reread it several times, sorry, I delve into non-core topics for a long time. No, not external and not internal; rather internal vs. third-party. "Optimizing", in general ... Your editor deleted the word. smile
              1. Engineer
                Engineer 21 September 2020 23: 36
                It's okay.
                If you do this so that the shop, the site gets the order and remains busy this one. Although here it is necessary to coordinate with the management.
                If for any other purpose, then in my opinion it is better not
                Purely my position
                PS Hello and you)
                1. Motorist
                  Motorist 22 September 2020 00: 00
                  It is strange: the word is literary - why have they been removed? .. Precisely so that the "site / workshop" remains afloat in every sense. We restrain the growth of negative profit, so to speak. And it is not the imaginary Crown that is to blame, it started back in 2008.
  10. LCA
    LCA 20 September 2020 14: 20
    Throughout its entire observable history, Russia has systematically violated the main law that ensures the economic security of society (in all senses of this term), as well as all aspects of social security derived from economic:
    The priority is not the production of goods for consumption and the achievement of a positive foreign trade balance, but the reproduction of production capacities sufficient for the needs and safety of society (in all senses) based on the latest achievements of fundamental science embodied in technology, technology and in the organization of social processes.
    Moreover, I.V. Stalin formulated this economic law in direct form in 1952 as follows:
    “Is there a basic economic law of socialism? Yes there is. What are the essential features and requirements of this law? The essential features and requirements of the basic economic law of socialism could be formulated in approximately the following way:
    ensuring maximum satisfaction of the constantly growing material and cultural needs of the whole society through the continuous growth and improvement of socialist production on the basis of high technology ”(“ Economic problems of socialism in the USSR. 1952 ”).
    Stalin: ““ The main thing in this definition is “to ensure maximum satisfaction ... of the needs of the WHOLE society”.
    Production is shown here as a MEANS for achieving this main goal - meeting needs. ”
  11. LCA
    LCA 20 September 2020 14: 31
    Exemption from the vices of the liberal market economic model requires the implementation of the following principles in practical policy:
    • Organization of a system of state planning for biosphere-socio-economic development based on objective laws. Reliance on them is a means of resolving both internal social and environmental problems; both on a national scale and on a global scale.
    • Construction of a three-circuit credit and financial system in the state:
    - the first circuit should serve the consumption of products by households;
    - the second circuit - the scope of production;
    - The third circuit is foreign trade.
    The rules on the basis of which the money supply between the circuits is carried out is in the uncontested competence of the state: their task is to suppress the parasitism of the speculative sector of the economy.
    • The domestic market is regulated by the state.
    Means of market regulation are:
    - tax burden sharing policy,
    - policy in the field of insurance of activities and risks,
    - a policy for the distribution of subsidies to producers of socially significant products in industries and regions, formed taking into account their identity and the needs of society,
    - a policy of protecting the market from speculative inflation of prices by the mechanism of distribution of subsidies to consumers of socially significant products.
    • Interest-bearing lending should be prohibited without alternative, since loan interest is the primary generator of inflation and the deficit of effective solvent demand: the banking system should be financed by fixed tariffs for banking services and have a share of the proceeds from successful projects carried out with the help of loans provided by it.
    • In addition, a system of standards is a means of regulating the market.
    Opportunities for interstate economic cooperation are connected with the problem of fears of the loss of sovereignty by member states, and above all financial and economic sovereignty.

    In the past, there were two options for organizing international trade:
    1. The construction of the national currency of the most powerful state in the rank of international means of payment. This gave rise to claims against the state issuing this currency, since its issue is the unearned income of this state, while other states participating in the international trade system must sell something in order to create their foreign exchange reserves.
    2. Direct currency conversion in mutual trade between the two states. In this case, problems arise as a result of exchange games in the foreign exchange markets.
    A third option is possible that does not threaten the sovereignty of any of the participants in the system and protects all of them from games in the foreign exchange markets. International trade is served by a currency that does not belong to any of the states participating in the system - a trans-state payment unit.
  12. LCA
    LCA 20 September 2020 14: 35
    The payment units of each of the states exclusively serve its domestic trade. If you need to make purchases of something abroad, your own payment unit is converted into a trans-state at the first stage, and at the second stage the trans-state is converted into a payment unit of the state of the system’s participant in which it is supposed to make purchases.
    To exclude speculation in currencies and thereby ensure the stability of the real sector of the economy of the member states, the conversion of state payment units into trans-state and back into state ones can be carried out at a fixed rate established on the basis of a comparison of ENERGY STANDARDS for the provision of convertible payment units.
    The price list invariant (kWh) is a commodity product participating in a product exchange along with other products, the quantity of which calculates the prices of all other goods and all costs (the price of an invariant is always equal to one) - hence the name of the term.
    Payment unit energy standard = annual electricity production (total capacity of existing power plants) / money supply in circulation.
    The price list base is primary energy carriers, tariffs for energy consumption, transport tariffs ... It is necessary that the price list base be determined by its composition, and the prices for the products included in it should be fixed.
    The absolute exchange rate of a monetary unit is:
    - the standard of its energy supply;
    - The concept of state energy potential management (technologies, production spectra);
    - quality management by this concept.
    Making the energy standard de jure is possible, but it determines the transformation of the trans-regional banking system (in essence of its activity) into a global “Gosplan” and a center for managing the distribution of energy resources (primarily electricity: something like a global main switchboard - the main distribution panel).
    The institute of credit is a means of control when it is in the hands of society itself or its state, and a generalized weapon when it is in the hands of an anti-national internationalist mafia. In the Euro-American conglomerate, this weapon (fourth priority) is in the hands of Zionist internationalism.
    The requirement of non-interference by the state in economic activity is the requirement of the MAFII to provide it with freedom of interference in the management of both the nation-wide economy in each state and the global economy of all mankind.
  13. LCA
    LCA 20 September 2020 14: 40
    The objective laws that govern the life of human society (both in terms of ensuring security and in terms of various kinds of security threats and the known harmfulness of certain types of activities) can be divided into six categories.
    In each of them, the laws have one or another effect on each other, as well as on the laws of other categories, since the World is one and whole:
    1. Humanity is part of the biosphere, and there are objective laws governing the interaction of the biosphere and Cosmos, the formation of biocenoses and the interaction of biological species within the biosphere.
    2. Humanity is a specific biological species, and there are specific biological (physiological and psychological) species laws that govern its life.
    3. There are moral and ethical (noospheric, egregorial and religious) laws governing the relationship between the owners of reason and will. And contrary to the opinion of many, the laws of this category go beyond the limits of human society, and ethics dictated from hierarchically higher levels in the organization of various kinds of systems are obligatory for hierarchically lower levels and deviation from its norms is punishable.
    Accordingly, the apostasy from righteousness - morality inherent in the Almighty - is the main moral and philosophical cause of the biosphere-social ecological crisis.
    4. The culture that mankind genetically predetermines is varied, and there are sociocultural patterns, following which guarantees the stability of society in the continuity of generations, and their violation can lead to its disappearance during the life of several generations under the influence of degradation processes.
    5. The historically established culture of all societies of the current global civilization is such that we are forced to defend ourselves against the natural environment by the technosphere. The technosphere is reproduced and developed in the course of economic and financial activities, and there are financial and economic laws that determine both the development of socio-economic formations and their degradation and collapse.
    6. All this together can lead to conflicts of interest and conflicts of different types of activities, the resolution of which must be managed. And there are objective laws of management that are common to all management processes, whether it is a baby riding a tricycle or a complex project implemented by several states on the principles of private-state partnership.
    The question is: Which of the deputies of various levels and senators are able to talk about them and how the draft laws being developed and the approved laws are consistent with them?
    The answer to this question is sad: No one.
    But in reality the situation will be even worse: They will not even understand what they are being asked about.
    Accordingly, none of them will be able to answer an alternative question: How do these laws be violated in bills and adopted laws?
  14. LCA
    LCA 20 September 2020 14: 48
    About the economy. The plan is the goal, and the market (unstructured management) is the way to achieve the goal; therefore, there can be no separate planned economy (as it was in the USSR) and a separate market economy.
    There is no Conspiracy Theory, but its silent Practice.
    The best way to hide something is to say it directly. The calculation is accurate: the truth is sometimes so incredible from the point of view of “common sense” that any speculation of those who want to get to the bottom of the truth just turns white before it, and the “true-minded people” themselves then fall into hysteria.
  15. depressant
    depressant 20 September 2020 17: 16
    In my opinion, the following happened.
    It was like this.
    During his life, some person kept an inn, saved money, died, left an inheritance. The clever heirs used the money they received to turn the tavern into a fashionable restaurant, simultaneously creating a small business for the production of products for the same restaurant. The next generation has already created a chain of restaurants and invested a little in the extraction of coal and oil, and so on. There is a slow growth in the well-being of the family with the transition to a serious capitalist phase. Of course, not without the help of financiers, but through moderate loans that I managed to repay. This was the case until the last century. Capitalist pastoral.

    In the course of the 20th, that is, the last century, banking capital began to take a leading position. Why wait for an inheritance? And if that inheritance is not there? And at the same time you are all such an active handsome man! Take money, do the enterprise here and right now! What are you waiting for? Do it! ..
    But this was not enough for the bankers. Worker, don't you have enough money to buy this and that? Take the money! You deserve this and that! You're a handsome man! What are you waiting for? Just remember to pay the bank interest on time ...
    But when it turned out that it was not possible to give the percentage, the worker demanded an increase in wages. Okay, said the capitalist. Increased wages and, in order not to miscalculate, demanded that the government start inflation. The wages in terms of mass have increased, and in terms of purchasing power - less. And to buy - oh, how you want! After all, the capitalist - he also did not doze. To get more profit, throughout the 20th century, using the achievements of science and technology, in which he invested heavily, the capitalist expanded the line of goods, increased with the help of advertising an already considerable bunch of temptations, a consumer society flourished ...
    But it blossomed in a strange way. It turned out that the worker can no longer build a house or even buy an apartment, as well as have heels of children, as was customary at the beginning of the last century.
    So take a loan for housing, what are you waiting for, said the banker, and why do you need so many children, you are not a peasant. And by the end of the 20th century, it turned out that housing and a car, in order to get to work, requires borrowing for the rest of your life, and now it is it to be inherited by children ...

    And without wishing it himself, the capitalist-producer of goods and services played into the hands of banking capital and got into bondage with it. The more goods and services a capitalist produces, the more often due to competition it is necessary to update the line of goods, the more in demand a bank loan is for research, for the creation of technologically new production facilities from scratch. After all, you don't want to completely spend the profit on this! Otherwise, what is the point in the activities of a capitalist? And taking into account the fact that now no one ever waits for the death of a beloved uncle or no less beloved grandfather in order to open production on the inheritance left, bank capital, which itself prints money, came out on top in making a profit, producing nothing but candy wrappers. New generations of capitalist producers no longer know any other way to create their own business, except for enslaving dependence on bankers.
    Banking capital now controls everyone, from the average consumer of goods and services to large industrialists and governments of countries, threatening to take away production and power in case of financial insolvency.
    There has been a significant monetary bias towards the unproductive banking sector, which now controls the world, or almost controls it and is not going to give up positions. On the contrary! He is going to gain a foothold in these positions forever.
    For this, he used a set of new technologies under the general name "digitalization". His goal was not the amount of money at his disposal, but the ability with its help to completely put civilization under his own control. For this he does not need a lot of population and many producers of goods. Population? Let it die out! To do this, we will impute cards to begin with, then the basic income, and then - points for statements on the Internet, therefore, on occasion, a truncated level of consumption, which you will not particularly multiply, then on points - the right to have a child, etc.
    This is how it can be with us.
    And what will happen to the capitalist producers? They are alarmed and are seriously thinking about this topic. The smaller the population, the less profit they have as producers of goods and services. But what to do with the fact that digitalization, through the forced use of robotics due to competition, takes the labor force out of the production brackets, which means automatically leads to a sharp reduction in the purchasing power of the population - you will not clear up on basic income! - and as a consequence, over time, to reduce the birth rate?
    This is such a collision at the present historical moment, a grinding in the interests of banksters and manufacturers.
    And what is the end result?
    Bankers put the population under complete control through cards. The forced introduction of robotics into production due to species and interspecific struggle within the industrial sector frees up a large number of workers for a certain period of time, and governments of different countries increase taxes on industrialists in order to introduce basic income. The population calms down, but not for long. The newly secured, and now the poor, grumble - they remember the old well-fed life! They remember for a long time. And they have already squandered the accumulated reserves. The murmur grows. At the same time, the production of goods and services is shrinking, as the number of consumers has dropped sharply. The capitalist producers are murmuring.
    Consumption crisis. End of an era.
    And what is the way out? As always - world war?
    But in a nuclear world?
  16. Iskazi
    Iskazi 20 September 2020 19: 58
    the author, of course, is clumsy, what can you do, trying to state his vision of the problems of the economy ..., from an economic point of view ..., although a purely physical view was more appropriate ..., - an oversaturated solution - uncontrolled crystallization ..., the classics wrote about the concentration and fusion of capitals and power .... but who would have thought that this phenomenon has a limit that can be continued, but not immediately. Some socialization and even communization of the world community is quite probable, but really temporarily. The liberal world is faced with the typically Soviet problem of excess central power. The West is trying to hastily move to a multipolar economic world ..., the Garant traditionally swallows dust ...
  17. faterdom
    faterdom 20 September 2020 20: 35
    A superconcentration of capital has taken place and is taking place in the hands of ever smaller families. And for the sake of this, all new instruments are being invented, all these YouTube capitalizations, and other derivatives ... All this will one day burst.
    The more it is inflated, the stronger. And it will slap everyone.
    There is financial capital, its mathematical ideal is contained in a simple formula: "One has everything, all others have nothing!"
    Only this beautiful and simple mathematical picture is unrealistic for wildlife and even more so for the human community. This is absurd, although the powerful of this world sink the locomotive in this direction. All robotization and virtual calculations lead to the fact that "a violinist is not needed." That is, a worker, a peasant, an accountant, a soldier is not needed - no one is needed at all!
    But here's the bad luck: well, there will remain in the world of the living only one conventional "Soros", one, completely alone, the richest man in the world, and indeed the only one! But he, paradoxically, is the poorest, and the most unhappy, and generally the last, even if you make him immortal.
    What for? Even he, for example, needs this?
    Consequently, all the antics of finance capital, which in different centuries were used as accelerators of the economies of individual states and peoples in competition with others, should be severely limited, even under the threat of nuclear war (to which they indirectly lead).
    But, while this is not visible, although ... the same Trump seems to have opposed it, on the other hand, it is under him that a record number of empty dollars is again printed before our eyes, and the States are on the verge of a new civil war.
  18. Nikza
    Nikza 20 September 2020 23: 10
    Great article. About the invented employment to the point. Recently watched Discovery. They showed the plot of how sandwiches are made. First, they showed a conveyor on which the aunts manually collect, cut and pack these same sandwiches. And then they show a conveyor at the same plant, which automatically assembles and packs sandwiches, easily and faster. I also thought, why manual labor? Why didn't you install another automatic conveyor? Well, I came to the conclusion that they are holding a manual conveyor on purpose to save a certain number of jobs.
    And by the way, it’s very interesting why in Russia they extinguished economic growth in 19? Only weak growth was outlined and the VAT was immediately raised from 18 to 20%, in fact, taking 1% (?) Of GDP, although the government was already full of money?
  19. lubesky
    lubesky 21 September 2020 01: 57
    When you need to explain your thought for half an hour, and then convince - it becomes like a stream of consciousness. Briefly and thesis, in intelligible language, the essence of the article (more precisely the last two paragraphs) is much earlier and more interestingly described by Nosov in Dunno on the Moon.
  20. yehat2
    yehat2 30 September 2020 11: 26
    profit is a primitive atavistic mechanism that helped develop a chaotic economy
    but, firstly, globally profit simply cannot exist
    and secondly, with the growth of orderliness in the economies of countries and the connection between them, the niche for the use of "wild" concepts should decrease, being replaced by others, including distribution at a new level of organization and logistics.
    Unfortunately, few people now understand that profit is an atavism, which already harms more than helps society and must get rid of it. And further its negative influence will only grow, taking away a better future