Military Review

How our country can use oil and gas revenues correctly

152

In the comments to my articles on the dependence of our budget on the dollar exchange rate and oil prices, a quite reasonable proposal was repeatedly sounded: "If you criticize, offer!" Indeed, it is so easy to criticize the existing budget processes, but what can be offered in return?


Why MET appeared


In short, after the collapse of the USSR, this is what happened: the state, of its own free will, lost monopoly ownership of oil and gas enterprises. A significant part of the assets passed into private hands, in whole or in part. The same "Gazprom" was corporatized, although the Russian Federation retained a significant part of the block of shares.

However, having allowed private investors to such a "feeding trough", the state, naturally, could not transfer to them the excess profits derived from the processes of oil and gas production and sale. Therefore, in addition to the usual taxes levied on enterprises in the real sector of the economy (VAT, income tax, etc.), our state has introduced special taxes for oil and gas production enterprises - in history we will not get into the question, but now this tax is the mineral extraction tax (MET).

On the one hand, this was correct, because this kind of excess profit is not the merit of the private owner, and in this case the state has not even the right, but the obligation to establish a more stringent tax regime than enterprises in other industries. But on the other hand, it was the MET that laid the foundation for the economic disasters of 2008 and 2014. and has become the strongest deterrent to the development of our economy.

The thing is that the profit of subsoil users depends very much on the cost of oil in international markets and on the ruble against the dollar. Accordingly, willy-nilly, it was necessary to tie the size of the severance tax to these two parameters - perhaps there was no other way out. How is that? The state should have withdrawn exactly the super-profits, and their size will differ from year to year, taking into account world oil prices and the ruble exchange rate. And if, for example, we establish a firm rent from each ton of oil produced in rubles, then at some time when oil is expensive abroad, Gazprom and Co. will swim in money, but when it collapses in price, the company's activities will go to the minus, crushed by the unaffordable tax at the given prices.

Make a 90% income tax for oil and gas companies? The idea seems to be not bad, but you need to understand that in this case, the excess profits of such companies can be spent on internal consumption (say, billions of dollars in salaries, offices made of pure gold, etc.) - and the tax will be paid from a "small share" of the real their profits.

Make a tax that depends on the cost of oil and the dollar, but levied only on oil and gas exported? A sensible idea, but then it is no longer a tax, but a customs duty is obtained, but we were striving for the WTO ...

In other words, in order to establish a fair withdrawal of excess profits from oil and gas companies in favor of the state, it was required to "tie" the calculation of the tax to those parameters on which these profits depend. It was not a bad solution to a specific problem ... But what consequences did it lead to?

Destructive consequences


First, a completely intolerable situation has developed, when the state has been able to patch up holes in both its own budget and the incomes of oil and gas enterprises by depreciating the ruble against the dollar. The mechanism is described in sufficient detail in previous article, there is no point in retelling it. In any somewhat difficult situation, it was enough for our government to simply collapse the ruble, as a result of which protection was provided for both the budget and those who play a very significant role in filling it - oil and gas producers. True, this was achieved at the expense of all other spheres of the economy and the bulk of the population, but who cares about them ... The Government of the Russian Federation is primarily responsible for fulfilling budgetary obligations, but they are asked "insofar as" for the growth rate of our country's economy. In addition, this situation fully satisfies the private shareholders of oil and gas production companies. What else is needed for happiness?

In other words, the severance tax and this kind of “ruble management” created, as it is called, a comfort zone for both the government and the oil industry, in which they feel good and comfortable, since the problems they face have relatively simple solutions. And the fact that this comfort is achieved at the cost of creating huge problems for the rest of the population of the Russian Federation does not really bother them.

The problem is that the large, as it is fashionable to say now, the volatility of the ruble provides our economy with a relatively high inflation, and relatively expensive loans, and an extremely low investment rating - who wants to invest in ruble-denominated production assets in the Russian Federation, the cost of which during of the next collapse of the ruble exchange rate can fall almost twice in dollar terms in the shortest possible time? In other words, as long as we do not give up playing with the ruble exchange rate as a means of patching up budget holes, we do not and will not have any prerequisites for normal economic development and growth.

By the way, my words are perfectly confirmed by statistics - as long as there are no sharp changes in the ruble exchange rate against the dollar, our economy is developing quite well, which, for example, was demonstrated by the 2000-2007 period. Even after 2008, our economy, having received a severe blow, nevertheless gradually restored its positions, only now it was worth restoring - 2014 burst out.

But what about that same Gazprom? According to some reports, in 2019, the average monthly salary of an employee of this oil giant was 110 rubles.


In other words, oil and gas production enterprises have long been transformed into a kind of "state within a state" in which the level of income can be several times higher than the average salary in the region where the enterprise is located. Of course, Gazprom is chic, in accordance with the brilliant statement of a prominent Ukrainian politician - "not only everything" - yes, someone gets very little, and someone's high salaries are more than justified by the harsh natural conditions in which they are earned, but ...

All this was - in the first place. And secondly - the introduction of the severance tax led to another, rather unpleasant consequence. The fact is that this tax is levied on each ton of oil produced, regardless of the complexity, and hence the high cost of production. More precisely, there is an amendment to the tax, but it is scanty. As a result, it became simply unprofitable for oil producers to undertake the development of complex fields - taking into account the need to pay severance tax, they are unprofitable. Thus, now there is a “sampling” of relatively cheap deposits, and no one thinks about what will happen next. After all, there is enough for their lifetime, what is already there.

What to do?


There is a solution to the above problems, and it, in general, lies on the surface.

It must be understood and accepted that such minerals as oil and gas cannot be owned by a private or even a state company. They must become the property of our people, the property of the state. That is, we need to change the very paradigm of the oil and gas complex. Any oil and gas produced on the territory of the Russian Federation, which also refers to the Arctic zones, etc., must be the property of the state.

Accordingly, the enterprises of the oil and gas production complex will cease to own the oil and gas they have produced. They must provide services for the extraction and transportation of oil and gas to the state.

That's all.

What is achieved by this?


At first, there will be a redistribution of income from the oil and gas complex to the state. There will be no more “states within a state” with a cosmic level of average salaries, because the same “Gazprom” and others like it will start working according to a system that most of all resembles military-industrial complex enterprises. That is, they will have to coordinate their expenses with the state (in the military-industrial complex this is done through the institution of military representatives), and they will receive their honest 20% profitability for their own costs and 1% for the services of their contractors.

Secondly, all foreign exchange earnings for the supply of oil and gas abroad will be in the hands of the state and the budget. This should even lead to a worsening of the situation - now the budget will have even more temptation to play with the ruble exchange rate. But it won't, and here's why.

The actions described above will concentrate foreign exchange earnings in the hands of the state, significantly increasing the share of foreign exchange earnings in the federal budget revenues. Accordingly, now even a very small depreciation of the ruble will provide a much higher budget profitability, that is, it will simply not be necessary to collapse the ruble by tens of percent. And besides, it will be impossible to "drop" the ruble exchange rate with impunity. After all, oil and gas producing companies will no longer have foreign exchange earnings, therefore, they will suffer from the depreciation of the ruble, like everyone else. And this will create the risks of their bankruptcy, which will be fraught with a decrease in oil and gas production and a drop in state revenues.

In other words, in the proposed scheme:

1. It will be possible to replenish the budget with much smaller fluctuations in the ruble exchange rate;

2. Government officials will have to think every time whether it is worth using this tool at all, whether it will bankrupt oil and gas production enterprises, because if it goes bankrupt, the budget will collapse, and then the official will be asked for it in full;

3. The owners of oil and gas production enterprises will become the strongest lobbyists against the depreciation of the ruble, because now, when they no longer have foreign exchange earnings, this decline will play against them in exactly the same way as against almost all other Russian businesses.

It was all - secondly. well and third, the state will receive the strongest inflation control levers. It is it that will now sell both oil and gas on the domestic market; it is it that will be able to set and control prices for such a sale. Thus, the state receives additional tools for managing the revenue side of the budget and influencing the economy as a whole.

In other words, today there is only one way to increase ruble revenues to the budget from the mineral extraction tax - by dropping the ruble. And in the proposed system, it will be possible to achieve the same effect with a significantly smaller change in the ruble exchange rate: you can slightly drop the exchange rate, but at the same time slightly raise the sales prices on the domestic market, or, perhaps, simply by printing out a "box" of reserve funds. Because, of course, the “budget rule” cannot be abandoned in the new system of relationships. Its meaning is that only a part of the revenues from oil export sales should go to the budget, and if oil prices are above a certain level, then the “excess” proceeds are set aside in reserve, “for a rainy day” in the reserve fund. But when the price of oil drops sharply, you can print the jug.

Fourthly, subsoil users will have an incentive to develop complex and expensive deposits. After all, the more their costs - the more profit they can earn. Now they will have to be "dragged by the ears" from such fields, but the development of relatively easy oil and gas deposits will become less profitable for them. If the order from the state for oil production is set in tons, then the less costs for a given volume the enterprise incurs, the less profit it will receive. Here, of course, the objection arises that the oil and gas industry will inflate costs out of the blue ... Of course, there will be. But the state has recently learned to work well with such in the implementation of the State Defense Order. There will be some excesses, but the overall situation will improve.

Fifthly, the state will have another opportunity to balance its budget. For example, while oil prices are high, first of all, complex, expensive fields are being developed, which, of course, entails additional costs for paying production companies, but this is covered by high world oil prices. But when these prices fall sharply, then it is possible to "reactivate" production from "light" fields, where the costs are minimal. It is clear that this tool has many limitations, but it will still be.

At sixth, now our oil and gas producers have currency in bulk, so they prefer to buy imported equipment. If their earnings become in rubles, then this will become a driver for the development of relevant industries in the Russian Federation - now, in the long term, it will be profitable to buy from a Russian manufacturer.

The nationalization of oil and gas will lead us to an increase in budgetary funds, stabilization of the ruble exchange rate, create excellent preconditions for reducing inflation, since changes in fuel prices will be much more predictable, and so on and so forth. But…

Dreaming is not harmful


The thing is that the current government will never agree to such fundamental changes. They simply do not need this, because the existing system is more than convenient for it, not to mention the fact that the nationalization of oil and gas will hit the pockets of private owners of oil and gas companies very hard.

Yes, if the authorities decided to do this, these very owners would have to put up with clenched teeth. But the existing hierarchy of power, as mentioned above, is in the comfort zone - after all, in order for the mechanism I have described above to work, you will need to work hard and bear considerable responsibility for the results of your labor. And why do this if their problems are being solved "at once" by a simple collapse of the ruble exchange rate?

One of the axioms of the science of managing people is that a leader should not let his subordinates stagnate in the comfort zone. He must lead them out of this zone so that they could return to it only after having worked hard and achieved their goals. But who will lead the Russian government out of the comfort zone? Alas, today there is no one to do this.

And therefore we are doomed to wander into nowhere - this is the direction in which today's economic policy of our state is leading us.

But if so, why are we talking about it?


"Then why are you writing all this, the author ?!" - the reader may ask a question. I answer. I strive to tell and show that the "world order" existing in the Russian Federation is not a dogma, it is not ideal and can be changed for the better. If our society wakes up, if it is imbued with the corresponding ideas, then sooner or later one economic law will work, which has proved its inviolability over many centuries of human existence. It sounds like this:

Demand creates supply

Simply put, if society wants something, sooner or later a political force will appear that wants to satisfy these desires. It is quite possible that it is by no means out of good intentions, but out of self-serving reasons - to provide oneself with the support of the electorate, for example. But is it really that important in the end?

Today, alas, there is no such force. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is completely exhausted, the Liberal Democratic Party, despite the biting remarks of the once young Zhirinovsky, has never been an opposition party, but it is absolutely impossible to talk about Navalny and his ilk seriously as politicians. Their level is small-town rallies, they are incapable of anything more. Give such people power - and at best they will scatter in horror from the responsibility that has fallen on them. In the worst case, they will try to steer and thus destroy the state.
Author:
152 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. nnm
    nnm 28 December 2020 18: 08
    +8
    Everything has long been clear where to spend:
    1. Education and Science;
    2. Medicine and health;
    3. Social protection of the poor and the elderly;
    4. Jobs, production, technology.
    All the rest is already secondary.
    1. Hunter 2
      Hunter 2 28 December 2020 18: 16
      +1
      Actually, having returned minerals (and this is not only oil and gas) to the People ... the need for a social system will actually lose its relevance. Examples of the World are available, the same Gulf Countries and Neighboring Norway.
      1. nnm
        nnm 28 December 2020 18: 21
        +5
        Well, so they can send them to the next purchases of American debt obligations.
        1. Proxima
          Proxima 28 December 2020 22: 10
          +6
          The Russian empire could not be called a socialist state, but nevertheless, it held the state monopoly on vodka production, and this was super-profits for the state, for the budget, and so on. I generally keep quiet about the USSR. Yeltsin, on the other hand (may he arrive in the heavenly groves d --- beat fool ) took this excess profit and gave it to private hands. And then the tax authorities dodged, putting their paw into the skinny pocket of state employees, pensioners, honest manufacturing enterprises ... Although any economist will tell you that the most efficient tax is an indirect tax... There is no need to support any tax services, fiscal structures devouring budget money, the people themselves bring you money by buying a bottle of vodka! good drinks As for the transfer of natural resources into private hands - this is a form of crime!
      2. Cron
        Cron 28 December 2020 18: 22
        -3
        Quote: Hunter 2
        Examples of the World are available, the same Gulf Countries and Neighboring Norway.

        1. nnm
          nnm 28 December 2020 18: 32
          +9
          I didn't quite understand what made you so outraged in the colleague's version! Why don't you like the sovereign wealth funds of Norway and the Saudis?
          More precisely, there are also enough minuses, but if we compare it with how we spent our oil surplus profits, it seems that the result of the comparison will not always be in our favor.
        2. credo
          credo 28 December 2020 19: 08
          +13
          At first glance, Andrey's proposal from Chelyabinsk is interesting and can easily pass for USSR 2.0, but the idea of ​​how authorized representatives of the state will monitor their activities at oil and gas enterprises is not fully disclosed.
          In addition, I remember that the collapse of the USSR was man-made and that it was the party and Komsomol leaders, together with state officials, who actively participated in the plunder of the people's property, whether the transfer of mineral resources and other minerals from the state's property would again lead to party functionaries and local government officials, in the event that another weak-willed Gorbachev comes to power or Yeltsin, who is eager for power in any way.
          This means that Andrei's proposal does not fully work out this issue and the mechanism for preserving mineral resources in the property of the state and the people, under any state system, no matter how it is - capitalist, socialist, feudal or slaveholding.
          Also, I would suggest to Andrey to expand the list of goods that the state should dispose of, preventing private owners from inflating prices inside the country and selling the best in unlimited quantities, leaving only third-rate goods inside the country.
          For example, why not extend the same to:
          - wood,
          - cereals,
          - oil crops,
          - black and non-ferrous metal,
          - precious metals,
          - marine resources, including fish,
          - and others.
          If this is a sensible thought, and not the next "500 days" of idle talkers and cynics of the 90s, then Andrey has a chance to "infect" with his proposal a multimillion audience of citizens of Russia, and maybe not only Russia, the main thing is that it should not be airy lock.
          Write on.
          1. IS-80_RVGK2
            IS-80_RVGK2 29 December 2020 02: 21
            -6
            What else nafig USSR 2.0 ?! What nonsense ?! What does the USSR have to do with it ?!
          2. Per se.
            Per se. 29 December 2020 10: 21
            +2
            Quote: credo
            Write on.
            Yes, it would be interesting to read Andrey's opinion about Sberbank and the Central Bank itself, which, as it turns out, are actually not ours. As a result, we have - there is no money, but you hold on, because the Central Bank cannot lend to the Russian government. The role of the IMF and the FRS is also interesting here.
            Otherwise, to Andrey's words:
            Simply put, if society wants something, sooner or later a political force will appear that wants to satisfy these desires.

            Probably not very long to wait.
        3. Evil Booth
          Evil Booth 28 December 2020 20: 30
          -5
          he wants to say one hundred KSA, extracting oil more than Russia for 100 times smaller population and paying everyone from Africa, the minimum wage supposedly has more palaces and least of all else, but in the palaces it is clear that they have good and bad and urgently need to swell all the oil and spend his ingenious project of an unrecognized genius.
      3. Svarog
        Svarog 28 December 2020 19: 06
        +6
        Quote: Hunter 2
        Actually, having returned minerals (and this is not only oil and gas) to the People ... the need for a social system will actually lose its relevance.

        What is that supposed to mean?
        1. Hunter 2
          Hunter 2 28 December 2020 19: 13
          0
          Quote: Svarog

          What is that supposed to mean?

          It seems that everything is written in Russian. But ... I'll chew for you. With the option of belonging of Mineral Resources to the People, the deductions for their use to Each Citizen will overlap the costs of Social Welfare. See examples for yourself ... Norway is the most suitable one.
          1. Svarog
            Svarog 28 December 2020 19: 17
            +8
            Quote: Hunter 2
            Quote: Svarog

            What is that supposed to mean?

            It seems that everything is written in Russian. But ... I'll chew for you. With the option of belonging of Mineral Resources to the People, the deductions for their use to Each Citizen will overlap the costs of Social Welfare. See examples for yourself ... Norway is the most suitable one.

            Now I understand ... otherwise it seemed that there would be no need for social services if natural resources belong to the people ..
            But I don't quite agree. The fact is that funds and all sorts of strata in our country are additional corruption. There were no interlayers in the USSR and I don't think it's necessary here. All income goes to the state, the state pays the pensioners at stake .. Everything.
            1. IS-80_RVGK2
              IS-80_RVGK2 29 December 2020 02: 25
              -6
              Another genius from economics. Hand face. Ndaaaa. I said that with such communists, we will build communism by an order of magnitude longer than the classics of obscurity assumed? I admit my mistake. At least two orders of magnitude longer. A little more of such revelations and I will become a zealous adherent of capitalism.
      4. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 29 December 2020 02: 18
        -4
        How simple it is with you. In the same way, everything seemed to be simple to those who were falling apart and letting the USSR collapse. For some, life teaches nothing. And jumping on a rake is their permanent state. What does the Gulf countries have to do with it? Have you ever tried to figure out the question?
      5. Malyuta
        Malyuta 29 December 2020 02: 32
        +13
        Quote: Hunter 2
        Actually, having returned minerals (and this is not only oil and gas) to the People ... the need for a social system will actually lose its relevance. Examples of the World are available, the same Gulf Countries and Neighboring Norway.

        I am very sorry, but are you writing this? Ebnoputinism does not imply the return of natural resources to the people.
    2. Svarog
      Svarog 28 December 2020 19: 10
      +4
      Everything has long been clear where to spend:
      1. Education and Science;
      2. Medicine and health;
      3. Social protection of the poor and the elderly;
      4. Jobs, production, technology.
      All the rest is already secondary.

      You need to spend based on your priorities.
      And in my opinion, demography is the most important priority ..
      As for the rest, I agree, but point 3, you need to expand and add disabled people, single mothers ..
      1. nnm
        nnm 28 December 2020 19: 17
        +7
        I partly agree with you, colleague. Let me explain why I did not indicate demography - without an educated, responsible for its choice and demanding society, any positive demography will be just "human oil", from which the last juices will be squeezed out in the same way.
        But, again, demographics, yes, a huge problem, thanks for the addition.
        p. 3 can be expanded indefinitely, your truth. Just wrote on the road and abbreviated it to "poor."
    3. Alex Nevs
      Alex Nevs 28 December 2020 19: 40
      -1
      They have known for a long time ... and use ... laughing Only we do not know this, but thinking, it never hinders walking against the wind.
  2. nnm
    nnm 28 December 2020 18: 11
    +1
    According to some reports, in 2019, the average monthly salary of an employee of this oil giant was 110 rubles.

    Colleague, if only for the parent company.
    In the daughters, perhaps, from a leading specialist such salaries (and even then for positions where there are direct contracts with the parent company).
    But there are practically no serious allowances, and there are not many premiums.
    In mining, the salaries are higher.
    Rather, all the same, this is not a salary, but an average salary.
  3. apro
    apro 28 December 2020 18: 16
    +4
    It is clear how to do it well and correctly ... but who will give it to be done? He is the owner ...
    1. Machito
      Machito 28 December 2020 19: 37
      +7
      Quote: apro
      It is clear how to do it well and correctly ... but who will give it to be done? He is the owner ...

      Drones from honey will never give up, even if the worker bees die of hunger.
  4. Alien From
    Alien From 28 December 2020 18: 16
    -2
    Yes, dear author, it's fate to rule the state ...
  5. rocket757
    rocket757 28 December 2020 18: 16
    +3
    Everything has been clear for a long time, all the recipes are !!!
    So why "cart" cannot move from the place .... or DOES NOT WANT ???
    1. Semenov
      Semenov 28 December 2020 19: 07
      +14
      Quote: rocket757
      So why "cart" cannot move from the place .... or DOES NOT WANT ???

      He is not allowed to move.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 28 December 2020 19: 30
        +1
        And what do they do when something, someone interferes?
        1. vladimirvn
          vladimirvn 28 December 2020 21: 11
          +3
          As it turns out, working and being rich are completely different things.
  6. nnm
    nnm 28 December 2020 18: 19
    +4
    It seems to me that an option would be interesting, for example, for companies with state participation, on the return of provisions on the composition of costs (analogue of 661PP), and the net profit can be easily controlled through the board of directors. Although there, and so through the materials of the tariff file, costs are regulated, but I'm talking about something else ...
    AND FINALLY REMOVE THE GASKET between the gas / oil industry and the budget in the form of Rosneftegaz LLC, in which 50% of the amounts to be transferred to the budget have been deposited for many years.
  7. 7,62h54
    7,62h54 28 December 2020 18: 20
    -5
    When criticizing, offer, and offer to act.
    And theorists were, are and will be.
    1. nnm
      nnm 28 December 2020 18: 27
      +3
      Quote: 7,62x54
      When criticizing, offer, and offer to act.
      And theorists were, are and will be.

      "Then why are you writing all this, author ?!" - the reader may ask a question. I answer. I strive to tell and show that the existing "world order" in the Russian Federation is not a dogma, it is not ideal and can be changed for the better. If our society wakes up, if imbued with the appropriate ideas, then sooner or later it will work one economic law that has proven its inviolability throughout the centuries of human existence. "
      I hope that my colleague was not offended that I answered for him with his quote.
      1. 7,62h54
        7,62h54 28 December 2020 18: 37
        -4
        Georgy Apollonovich has already been in the history of Russia.
        1. nnm
          nnm 28 December 2020 18: 40
          +4
          Well, what does Gapon have to do with it? Everything, if a person is not satisfied with the current system of taxation, redistribution, stimulation of the economy, the rules of interaction of individual economic entities, is that all, is he a provocateur?
          Just nod, applaud and lick amicably?
          1. 7,62h54
            7,62h54 28 December 2020 19: 02
            +1
            I have no time to deal with all of you listed in the last paragraph. We survive as best we can.
            1. nnm
              nnm 28 December 2020 19: 05
              +2
              Bravo!!! But at the same time, what the author brings to the conclusion that in the richest country in the world people should not survive, but live - this is a provocation.
              Brilliant and impeccable logic of statements (no!).
              1. 7,62h54
                7,62h54 28 December 2020 19: 17
                0
                It would be better if the author wrote open letters to the president, the prime minister to the FSB and the prosecutor's office. I already understand. And they know nothing up there.
                1. nnm
                  nnm 28 December 2020 19: 42
                  +7
                  Colleague, you clearly know a lot about good jokes.
    2. Svarog
      Svarog 28 December 2020 19: 12
      +2
      Quote: 7,62x54
      When criticizing, offer, and offer to act.
      And theorists were, are and will be.

      It all begins with theorists. I think we need more such articles.
      1. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 29 December 2020 02: 29
        -3
        About taking away and sharing? I don't even know what to do here. Cry or laugh.
  8. Anachoret
    Anachoret 28 December 2020 18: 30
    +8
    there can be many recipes and there can be even more special cases)
    just look at the list of owners of SOGAZ, which parasitizes on the same Gazprom and Railways)
    insurance premiums alone from here would be enough for all breakthrough projects in science and education)

    speculation in Rosneft shares is also an anecdotal story, when, unable to pay the bills, Rosneft bought Bashneft on credit from a Russian bank, and then immediately resold on credit "who needs" its 20% on a loan from a Russian bank. moreover, she sold her stake at a reduced price every 5 times, at least
  9. parusnik
    parusnik 28 December 2020 18: 39
    +4
    It is necessary to understand and accept that such minerals as oil and gas cannot be owned by a private or even a state company. They must become the property of our people, the property of the state.
    ...How cute. smile The fact is that, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the subsoil is the property of the people. Moreover, you will not believe, the people in the person of the state (our state is social and popular) transfers the subsoil for use to a person or persons who have the means of production for the extraction of subsoil. we do not own the means of production for the extraction of mineral resources. The basic law does not allow. Simply, the people here own everything, but receive nothing from it.
    1. Hunter 2
      Hunter 2 28 December 2020 18: 54
      -2
      Quote: parusnik
      How cute. smile The fact is that, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the subsoil is the property of the people. Moreover, you will not believe, the people in the person of the state (our state is social and popular) transfers the subsoil for use to a person or persons who have the means of production for the extraction of subsoil. we do not own the means of production for the extraction of mineral resources. The basic law does not allow. Simply, the people here own everything, but receive nothing from it.

      Article 9 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation Read carefully!
      Text Art. 9 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the current version for 2020:
      1. Land and other natural resources are used and protected in the Russian Federation as the basis of the life and activities of the peoples living in the relevant territory.
      2. Land and other natural resources may be in private, state, municipal and other forms of ownership.
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 28 December 2020 19: 40
        +5
        Quote: Hunter 2
        2. Land and other natural resources may be in private, state, municipal and other forms of ownership.

        That is why in this private property, first of all, there were "public" minerals, water and forest resources. And they got it according to forged bylaws and orders.
        Who gave the right to extract and sell to whom and where did the basis of the life and activities of the peoples living in the corresponding territory go? This is probably why the most acute problem in the country is the demographic one.
        And who said that those who received the right to mine must sell resources abroad themselves? Why on earth? Build castles and yachts for these petrodollars and pay people a ruble?
        There is only one way out. The entire purchase and sale of oil should be handled by the state structure. They should pay all these companies rubles. Let these LLCs and OJSCs process, if they need, the ruble proceeds into dollars.
        It should be noted that in the early 90s we already played a game with skates. We always had losing cards in our hands, but now we realized who the winnings went to.
      2. Fat
        Fat 28 December 2020 20: 05
        0
        Quote: Hunter 2
        2. Land and other natural resources may be in private, state, municipal and other forms of ownership.

        The norm of the second part of the commented article is formulated in such a way that, on the one hand, it proclaims the possibility of finding natural resources in any form of ownership, and on the other hand, the wording “may be located”, as noted by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, means that, assuming the possibility of finding natural resources in various forms of ownership, the Constitution of the Russian Federation does not oblige all natural resources to be in these different forms of ownership * (37). According to the provisions of the current legislation of Russia, most natural resources are in state ownership. In accordance with the Law of the Russian Federation of February 21, 1992 N 2395-1 "On subsoil" (as amended on July 18, 2008) subsoil within the boundaries of the territory of the Russian Federation, including underground space and contained in the subsoil minerals, energy and other resources are state property. The issues of ownership, use and disposal of subsoil are under the joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and its subjects.
        Subsoil plots cannot be the subject of purchase, sale, donation, inheritance, contribution, pledge or alienate in any other form. Subsoil use rights may be alienated or transferred from one person to another to the extent that their turnover is permitted by federal laws.

        Source: http://konstrf.ru/9
        When there are doubts about a legal norm, you can always look at the comments and learn about the practice of applying the norm
  10. nikvic46
    nikvic46 28 December 2020 18: 57
    +3
    We are all looking forward to new ventures. And those who want to create such enterprises are racking their brains about how to make new enterprises profitable. With such energy prices, it is very difficult to do this. Either they should be food-based, or directed to the military, or for export. The author deliberately articulated the state with the popular. That is the root of the question: "And he threw horses for duty among the neighbors." All dear land is gradually becoming occupied. Where not throw, everywhere a wedge.
  11. north 2
    north 2 28 December 2020 18: 58
    +9
    all the subsoil of Russia must belong to the Russian people. How much was stolen and how Russia was robbed by the oil barons, one can already roughly guess. But there is also the extraction of gold, diamonds, rare earth metals in the hands of private companies. How much they stole and how they robbed and how they got rich, we hardly hear about this material, as if the owners are honest and think about the good of the Russian people. By the way, it was the Chechens under Yeltsin and Dudayev who were very firmly entrenched in the masters of these mines, so what was then why the Chechen bandits under Dudaev were buying weapons, and now billions of profits from these mines are an unofficial payment of tribute to Russia to Kadyrov and Chechnya.
    The forest is the same national property as the subsoil. And how many forests and timber have been cut down and stolen. The figures of not received money to the budget are comparable to figures from the extraction by private companies in the gold and diamond mines. But the most interesting thing is that when all the bowels and all the forests belonged to the people, that is, during the USSR, there was free medicine, free education, free new apartments, and people now have forgotten about it and pretend to be fools who do not understand where and why for all this the state took funds. It is obvious that Russia is really not always understandable with the mind. But the oligarchs and criminal clans of Russia understood very well what kind of Klondike is for them.
  12. mag nit
    mag nit 28 December 2020 19: 03
    +7
    Do you want to let Putin's lads around the world?
  13. Svarog
    Svarog 28 December 2020 19: 05
    -1
    Simply put, if a society wants something, then sooner or later a political force will appear that wants to satisfy these desires.

    Absolutely agree! Actually for this purpose I am writing comments.

    It is necessary to understand and accept that such minerals as oil and gas cannot be owned by a private or even a state company. They must become the property of our people, the property of the state

    That's right .. only who will hear .. You need to constantly shout about it .. and then maybe a really popular party will appear .. But frankly, I don’t believe in it anymore .. Everyone who will be in opposition to the authorities will be rotten. This is what modern political history shows, where one rower has been rowing for 20 years tirelessly, for the good of the friends ..
    1. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 29 December 2020 02: 33
      +1
      Well yes. Nothing will ever change from the screams from the couch and there have been no precedents in history for something to change. Suddenly. laughing
  14. Hagen
    Hagen 28 December 2020 19: 06
    -4
    "Then why are you writing all this, the author ?!" - the reader may ask a question. I answer. I strive to tell and show that the "world order" existing in the Russian Federation is not a dogma, it is not ideal and can be changed for the better.

    Have a better offer than you have today? Fine! The only thing left is to get reviews for these proposals from, for example, Glazyev and, in parallel, from Guriev, Yasin, May or any of the top twenty ratings. And so you all beautifully described how Gazprom fattens. Just don't write that everyone can go to "mountain" or "Gubkina", finish, work at the end of the world, for example on Vankor or Priobka, for a little, ten to fifteen years in drilling or workover in the open air, to advance in a career in YUNG or other oil and gas companies, and to retire to emerge in St. Petersburg at the glass tower. However, something does not "pull" people to freeze snot for a "long ruble". And in 2020, the passing score for applied geology in Gubkinsky was only 189. Author, tell me, how is that?
    sooner or later, one economic law will work, which has proven its inviolability over many centuries of human existence. It sounds like this:
    Demand creates supply

    So they remembered about market laws. It's good. This suggests that the salaries of geologists are low, so young people do not go there.
    I will not comment on the details of the proposed reform, there are no numbers, there is nothing to rely on ... Academicians can do it better laughing
    1. NKT
      NKT 28 December 2020 19: 12
      +5
      To emerge at the glass tower in St. Petersburg, you need to go to Yamal, to Bovanenkovo, to work in Nadym or Novy Urengoy)
      Now there are very few graduates who agree to go to the North, they immediately want to go to the office with a salary of 150tr
      1. Hagen
        Hagen 28 December 2020 19: 16
        0
        Quote: NKT
        To emerge at the glass tower in St. Petersburg, you need to go to Yamal, to Bovanenkovo, to work in Nadym or Novy Urengoy)

        I agree. I have indicated places for an example. I understand that from Yuganskneftegaz, the roads will lead to the Sofiyskaya embankment in Moscow rather than to St. Petersburg.
        1. Essex62
          Essex62 29 December 2020 08: 04
          0
          And so that it was necessary to revive the Soviet, socialist model - if you want a little more, go freeze the snot, in difficult conditions. Those. no private property and no capitalism. To the office after graduation? Yes, please, for a hundred and twenty hazel grouses. And so that 400 and more forward into the taiga to mosquitoes, gnats, sugrubs "with handles" and minus 50, at times. It was the fairest system. Only hucksters, hucksters of all stripes, did not fit into it. And they, then, for themselves and sharpened everything, while the niggas clapped their ears and dreamed of jeans and became a man of labor, again, nothing.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      29 December 2020 07: 05
      +2
      Quote: Hagen
      The only thing left to do is to get reviews for these proposals from, for example, Glazyev

      What for?:))))
      For example, I proposed to provide a stable exchange rate of the ruble against the dollar in one of my articles. Glazyev offered Putin the same. Well, where is Glazyev now?
      Quote: Hagen
      Just don't write that everyone can go to "mountain" or "Gubkina", finish, work at the end of the world, for example on Vankor or Priobka, for a little, ten to fifteen years in drilling or workover in the open air, to advance in a career in Yuganskneftegaz or other oil and gas companies, and to retire in St. Petersburg at the glass tower.

      I’ll tell you easier - there are a lot of people who are ready to work hard and work hard at the edge of geography, in conditions much worse than any field, and the maximum that shines for them is an office in Tyumen. For money that is several times less than that of oil / gas workers. Seismic exploration is called. So don't la-la, especially since I wrote
      someone's high salaries are more than justified by the harsh natural conditions in which they earn

      And I'm not even talking about the fact that in Gazprom, many people work at sooooo high salaries, who have seen the conditions of the Far North only on TV. I personally have such acquaintances
      1. Hagen
        Hagen 29 December 2020 10: 07
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        What for?:))))
        For example, I proposed to provide a stable exchange rate of the ruble against the dollar in one of my articles. Glazyev offered Putin the same. Well, where is Glazyev now?

        Glazyev - Doctor of Economics, Professor, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (since 2008), acting member of the board (minister) for the main directions of integration and macroeconomics of the Eurasian Economic Commission. As you can see, no one has deprived his title of academicians. He remains a heavyweight expert. Why, you ask, a review? And then, to understand how much you can trust your calculations in terms of the logic of the model. Why are you scared? You are sure that everything you said is better than what is in the legislation today. Through an expert assessment, one can count on some partial participation in the development of Russian tax legislation. Doesn't it seduce you?
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        there are a bunch of people who are ready to work hard and work hard on the edge of geography, in conditions much worse than any field, and the maximum that shines for them is an office in Tyumen.

        Of course! And those who have proven that they are able to work better than others work there. Because the salary is pleasant .... But there are still vacancies.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        So don't la-la, especially since I wrote
        someone's high salaries are more than justified

        "Someone's" !!! Today, all exploration and almost all production takes place in extreme climatic conditions. These "someone's" make up under 90% of the personnel working in SE, RN, Lukoil, etc.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        in Gazprom, many people work for sooooo high salaries, who only saw the conditions of the Far North on TV. I personally have such acquaintances

        Yes, there are some (although I don’t know which salary you think is sooooo high, and who shared the numbers with you. It’s not customary for them). I also know some of them, and with someone I maintain very close personal relationships. I don’t presume to judge how many of them there are in the company, but these are, as a rule, people with the highest multifaceted training, a large base of knowledge and skills. And if they are not paid decently with us, they will be paid a lot more from competitors. And we will continue to teach, train and give away for free (this is on condition that we start saving on them).
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          29 December 2020 10: 51
          +1
          Quote: Hagen
          Why, you ask, a review? And then, to understand how much you can trust your calculations in terms of the logic of the model.

          I'm sorry, but:
          1) I don't even know how to comment on the level of your requirements for me as an author. Censorship words somehow do not come to mind, forgive me. That is, I must (!) Receive reviews from the country's leading economists (!!!) to convince you of something? You ... how would it be polite ... the sky does not press on the halo?
          2) I strongly doubt that Glazyev will review the article.
          Quote: Hagen
          Why are you scared? You are sure that everything you said is better than what is in the legislation today. Through an expert assessment, one can count on some partial participation in the development of Russian tax legislation. Doesn't it seduce you?

          Let's start with the fact that I have already tried to do this as part of one economic group in St. Petersburg. We came out with proposals in the early 2000s. And they were sent ... far and distinct.
          Secondly, yes, you are right, I still hope that the idea will go to the masses. And yes, an expert opinion would not hurt at all for this. But for this it is necessary to propose not a separate idea, but a program, certain provisions of which I have already tried to "test" in public through publications about "USSR 2.0". I will not include everything that I said there in the program (I am a realist, and I understand that now no one will sign some things in principle, even if they were correct), but still.
          So an attempt to get an expert assessment of the same Glazyev will be - when the program is assembled. And before that, I’ll roll her positions on the topvar.
          Quote: Hagen
          "Someone's" !!! Today, all exploration and almost all production takes place in extreme climatic conditions.

          Until recently, exploration was carried out by separate structures, EMNIP, with the exception of Bashneft, which are not part of the groups of subsoil users. This is now, when they were crushed by economy, they began to do something of their own.
          Quote: Hagen
          These "someone's" make up under 90% of the personnel working in SE, RN, Lukoil, etc.

          Sorry, but this is nonsense, from the word "complete". Lots of people working in Khanty, Noyabrsk, etc. etc. has a multiple salary higher than people working in the same cities. And even talking about the conditions of the far north in Tomsk and Omsk, for example, (Gazpromneft-Vostok and the Tomsk Oil Refinery), is even somehow ridiculous to talk about
          1. Hagen
            Hagen 29 December 2020 12: 00
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            That is, I must (!) Receive reviews from the country's leading economists (!!!) to convince you of something? You ... how would it be polite ... the sky does not press on the halo?

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            So an attempt to get an expert assessment of the same Glazyev will be - when the program is assembled. And before that, I’ll roll her positions on the topvar.

            You have to be consistent. If you think that it is beneath your dignity to prove to me, as a reader of your idea, your professional aptitude in this topic, then what does it mean to test the provisions of the program? Like - I've laid it out for you here, but don't you dare to doubt my genius? Aren't you funny yourself?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Lots of people working in Khanty, Noyabrsk, etc. etc. has a multiple salary higher than people working in the same cities.

            And how do you raise the quality of the accepted labor resource. Only by stimulating the competition. With their salary level, there are always several people per vacancy. As for Tomsk, I will tell you that oil production is not carried out in the city center. And at the deposits the weather is more severe there than in Moscow and the Moscow region. For general development, you would go and try to stay in the cattle brigade for a day, so make a photo of the work shift without going into the beams. And their salary would not seem too high to you.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Until recently, exploration was carried out by separate structures, EMNIP, with the exception of Bashneft, are not part of the groups of subsoil users

            It seems so to you. That RN, that of the SOE, that the rest of the NG companies are active in exploration. Read the FA reports on subsoil use, where the merit of subsoil users in exploration for minerals is emphasized in plain text.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              29 December 2020 12: 24
              +1
              Quote: Hagen
              You have to be consistent.

              And that's what I am.
              Quote: Hagen
              If you think that it is beneath your dignity to prove to me, as a reader of your idea, your professional aptitude in this topic, then what does it mean to test the provisions of the program? Like - I've laid it out for you here, but don't you dare to doubt my genius? Aren't you funny yourself?

              It's funny. Above you.
              I am posting an article. You can believe it, disbelieve it, print it and use it as toilet paper or hang it on the wall in a frame. This is your right as a reader, and I do not dispute it. Also, you have every right to publicly criticize my article - for that and comments. As an author, it is my right to count on constructive criticism, which means the logical argumentation of your point of view, if such is in conflict with the article.
              The statements "If your article is not approved by Glazyev, therefore, all this is nonsense" is not constructive criticism.
              Quote: Hagen
              For general development, you would go and try to visit a cattle brigade for a day,

              I, dear man, have lived in Khanty for 6 years and have been in such brigades more than once, take my word for it.
              Quote: Hagen
              And their salary would not seem too high to you.

              And again you are trying to accuse me of what I did not say. Well, what should I call you after that?
              Quote: Hagen
              It seems so to you.

              Well yes. And my 6 years of experience in seismic exploration I dreamed about laughing
              1. Hagen
                Hagen 29 December 2020 13: 17
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The statements "If your article is not approved by Glazyev, therefore, all this is nonsense" is not constructive criticism.

                Surely! Here is the approval of, for example, Meehan - this is an indicator of success for you ..... You know, a thesis for a candidate's degree cannot be defended if there are no opponents and authoritative advice from doctors on the topic. Name at least a couple of comments that could be regarded as opposing or constructively critical.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                I, dear man, have lived in Khanty for 6 years and have been in such brigades more than once, take my word for it.

                Maybe....
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                And my 6 years of experience in seismic exploration I dreamed about

                Whether you have experience in intelligence or not, I did not see anything confirming. Here is the fact that you are not familiar with the reports of the FAPNP technical council, this is evident from the reaction to my mention of it. And what you dream, you know better.
                We have an "interesting" conversation with you. You tell me in an article written among others and for me, say that you are smarter than those institutions that build the country's economy, because there are only mediocrities and plunders. But when I express doubt in your calculations, you reproach me for the absence of constructivism and for having a great opinion of yourself. I see no point in such a conversation. I expressed my opinion about you as an economist. I have nothing to add. For this I say goodbye ...
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  29 December 2020 15: 06
                  +1
                  Quote: Hagen
                  We have an "interesting" conversation with you.

                  Yes
                  Quote: Hagen
                  In an article written for me, among others, you tell me that you are smarter than the institutions that build the country's economy

                  What institutions do we build the country's economy? :)))
                  Quote: Hagen
                  But when I express doubt about your calculations, you reproach me for the absence of constructivism and for having a great opinion of yourself.

                  I read and remember: "lies are like breathing." You express doubts without substantiating them. If you doubt it, that's all. You write that what I have written is nonsense, but do not give any arguments to refute my theses. AND FOR THIS I reproach you for the absence of constructivism
                  Further, as an answer to my reproaches, you, instead of answering on the merits and substantiating the claims with something, stand in the lotus position and demand from me (!) A refutation of doubts that you have not specified (!!!) Moreover, there are no confirmations - anything, but the approval of my work by the country's leading economists (!!!).
                  And FOR THIS, I reproach you with a great opinion of yourself.
                  Quote: Hagen
                  I see no point in such a conversation.

                  I also
                  Quote: Hagen
                  For this I say goodbye ...

                  I will miss you. And - with joy.
                  1. Hagen
                    Hagen 29 December 2020 16: 16
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You write that what I have written is nonsense, but you do not give any arguments to refute my theses

                    Do you take everything written on the fences on faith? And besides, the fact that you give examples that contradict the legislation and practice of life, makes me doubt your competence. I once told you about this, but you, apparently, do not consider it a good reason.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You write that what I have written is nonsense,

                    Why are you lying? I just suggested that you show your ideas to economists with a "name" whom I could trust. I already said that I am not an economist. You know, in the investigation there is such a practice - to trust the opinion of an expert. I think this is quite a normal practice that deserves the right to life.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    stand in the lotus position and demand from me (!) a refutation of doubts not specified by you (!!!) Moreover, not any confirmation, but approval of my work by the country's leading economists (!!!).

                    Well, by God, you are fantastic. laughing And in what position would you like to see me ?! laughing (do not say, otherwise children ....). You reason very primitively. You would subscribe with your name, give a link to the textbook you wrote for teaching students, and there would be no need for reviews from leading economists. And you, under an anonymous nickname, called all the "parents" of the tax and budget codes illiterate, you are a genius, and you think everyone should agree?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    What institutions do we build the country's economy? :)))

                    You don't even know that. What to talk to you about? Ask what an autonomous non-profit organization "Analytical Center for the Government of the Russian Federation" or the Institute for Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences is, at least ... to begin with.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    I will miss you. And - with joy.

                    No doubt. Any manure can be rubbed into the brains of the people on a resource for a small share, so long as they do not ask questions. wassat
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      30 December 2020 08: 35
                      +1
                      Quote: Hagen
                      You don’t even know that.

                      Unlike you, I know
                      Quote: Hagen
                      ask what is an autonomous non-profit organization "Analytical Center for the Government of the Russian Federation" or the Institute for Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences, at least ...

                      for example, the Analytical Center under the Government of the Russian Federation is engaged in boltology, its main function recently being "operational expert support of government decisions." This is expressed in such "deep" economic transformations as national projects, the National Data Management System, digitalization of the most important sectors of the economy.
                      The center is not engaged in the development of the economic policy of the Russian Federation from the word "in general".
                      Say yourself that you are not an economist, and you yourself try to judge what you do not understand
                      Quote: Hagen
                      And besides, the fact that you give examples that contradict the legislation and practice of life

                      But cheating is not good

                      Quote: Hagen
                      Any manure can be rubbed into the brains of the people on a resource for a small share

                      Who pays it to you? - that is the question.
                      1. Hagen
                        Hagen 30 December 2020 10: 30
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        for example, the Analytical Center under the Government of the Russian Federation is engaged in boltology, its main function recently being "operational expert support of government decisions." This is expressed in such "deep" economic transformations as national projects, the National Data Management System, digitalization of the most important sectors of the economy.

                        This reminds me of Sharikov's statement from the famous film that he disagrees with Kautsky and Engels.
                        laughing
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        30 December 2020 10: 37
                        0
                        Quote: Hagen
                        This reminds me of Sharikov's statement

                        But in essence you cannot argue. Nobody bothers you to reveal my incompetence and tell you about what actually useful was done by this very Analytical Center under the Government of the Russian Federation. You yourself do not know what he is doing, but it seems to you that he is doing something useful :)))
                        Accordingly, the value of your judgments regarding my person is difficult to underestimate hi
                      3. Hagen
                        Hagen 30 December 2020 11: 44
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But in essence you cannot argue.

                        It is no one's fault that you do not see the entities. It's just a fact of your biography. No more. It is not within my competence to assess this fact. It is impossible to refute you, because you are wandering in the darkness and you have no facts, only unsubstantiated interpretations. Your attempts at "programs" are not serious. I can only say that your attempt to denigrate the work of the country's leadership is untenable. Therefore, with all your efforts, no one believes you and votes at a critical moment the way they vote. Actually, this is the disease of the entire opposition in the country today. There are no specialists, no programs and no charismatics capable of leading. Therefore, the unprincipled United Russia monopoly took the majority in all power structures. This is a disaster ... But with your abilities, it cannot be overcome. Unfortunately. I will not advise you anything. This sadness is not mine. As a fact: there is a pitchfork, a lot of manure, and plenty of fans. Try. wink
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        30 December 2020 11: 57
                        +2
                        Quote: Hagen
                        It is no one's fault that you do not see the entities. It's just a fact of your biography.

                        The problem is not that I am missing something. This is just not a problem, if they showed me my mistakes, I wrote refutations to my own articles - and this is an easily verified fact.
                        The problem is that you cannot show it. You believe that everything is wrong with me and pour the slop of your eloquence on me, but apart from general words and accusations, there is nothing in them.
                        And this is empty.
                      5. Hagen
                        Hagen 30 December 2020 12: 33
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The problem is that you cannot show it.

                        Best defense - offensive? Yes, full of you ... You have one mistake, you undertake to assert that you are a genius, but do not try to argue this with your real competencies. How is it possible to suggest looking for errors from you? Your opinion should never be taken as work that can be corrected. Like schoolchildren's fantasies about flying to the moon. Well, who would think of looking for mistakes in the absurdity of an ignorant person ?! But on the whole, this polemic made me remember some documents, which I assess positively for myself. Happy holiday! I wish you success on all fronts next year !!! (Don't mistake it for sarcasm !!!) hi
                      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        30 December 2020 12: 44
                        0
                        Quote: Hagen
                        You have one mistake, you undertake to assert that you are a genius, but do not try to argue this with your real competencies.

                        Not tired yet? :))))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The problem is that you cannot show it. You believe that everything is wrong with me and pour the slop of your eloquence on me, but apart from general words and accusations, there is nothing in them.
                        And this is empty.
  • north 2
    north 2 28 December 2020 19: 16
    +4
    here are adopted amendments to the Constitution of Russia. No, the first and main point of discussion of these amendments would be the point that all subsoil and natural resources in Russia belong to the people of Russia.
    Where are you going ... But in a referendum the people would have supported such an amendment to the Constitution.
  • Alexey Sommer
    Alexey Sommer 28 December 2020 19: 27
    +4
    Developed countries purchase raw materials from developing countries, and then process and consume them at home, because it is much more profitable than selling these raw materials.
    This is better because:
    1. Significantly more added value, about 3 times. For example, you can recalculate how much oil is obtained from a barrel of oil.
    Some statistics:
    At the end of 2018, Russia is still structurally dependent on fluctuations in the oil situation: the share of oil and gas accounts for about 20 percent of GDP, 45 percent of federal budget revenues and almost 60 percent of exports

    Those. if you organize the processing of raw materials in the country, GDP will grow, only due to processing in the country by 40%, excluding the so-called multiplier effect, which will be many times greater. Those. processing and consumption of raw materials within their economy is a real way to increase the country's GDP at times.
    2. The final product of processing is much less susceptible to fluctuations in prices on stock exchanges, which means that there will not be those fluctuations in the ruble exchange rate.
    Russia follows the path of exporting raw materials mainly for the following reasons, in my opinion:
    1. Russia's economy today does not need so much oil and gas on the domestic market; it cannot consume and process all the raw materials it produces.
    Here you can stop and think that the collapse of production in the 90s was not spontaneous, but the conditions for its reduction were created deliberately, in order to reduce domestic demand for raw materials and redirect them for export.
    2. And they don't want to change anything, given the hypothesis above. It is much easier to trade liquid and gas than to arrange their complete processing and efficient consumption in your own country.
    3. In general, they cannot now. There is simply no technical and managerial qualifications to create and manage new sectors of the economy.
    ps But it is possible that not everything is so gloomy in the short term.
    Hope for this is given by the decision to ban the export of round timber. Maybe it will reach other resources.
    In a word, let's be optimists. hi
  • samarin1969
    samarin1969 28 December 2020 19: 49
    +6
    I liked the article more than the first one. hi More structurally described. The author himself asked the questions, he answered them himself.
    Yes, Russo Aramco would be a good option. Only it should be a "tectonic shift" in power more significant than 1991. There, only one "international" was replaced by another.
    Dear Andrey formulates a "social order" for the "nationalization of mineral resources" party. Probably TNCs' neural networks are already forming files of dangerous "nationalizers". laughing bully

    p. 1: The proposal to reduce the role of corporations to the creation and maintenance of the national oil and gas infrastructure is interesting. Moreover, many "friends" have risen well in the design and construction of pipes, bridges, roads. "Russia's Property" pays generously, guaranteed.

    ps 2: Several of my graduates, quite patriotic young people, are storming oil and gas geology at the universities of Kazan and Rostov. I hope that the "gospel of Andrew" will come true in their lives.
  • Artyom Karagodin
    Artyom Karagodin 28 December 2020 19: 55
    -1
    Cool article. Moreover, such a scheme simply needs to be applied in the extraction of other minerals. And then - a goblin with him, with a large private business, let him work. Since it will be under the tight control of the state.

    After all, the main danger here is that large industrialists, if they are allowed to concentrate sufficient resources, quickly turn into oligarchs who work not for the state and its development, but for the accumulation of wealth and, with some degree of success, bend the state and society under themselves.

    And in the scheme proposed by the respected author, they are, to simplify, representatives of the service sector.
    1. Rudkovsky
      Rudkovsky 28 December 2020 21: 02
      -4
      Soviet-style state capitalism already collapsed 30 years ago, what do you think is cool about returning to a similar scheme? Did you want to run on a rake?
      1. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 28 December 2020 21: 19
        +3
        And who said that it was on the Soviet model? In the USSR, there was a fundamentally different scheme. And private business was not even close there. Of course, legal and before perestroika.

        And what seems cool to me is exclusively my business. I'm not going to preach to you.
        1. Rudkovsky
          Rudkovsky 28 December 2020 21: 23
          -3
          But there was a mega-oligarch represented by the state itself, which, on the one hand, traded in everything he could, and on the other hand, he could not ensure either the efficient use of resources or the growth of the population's well-being.
          Modern oligarchs are somehow more honest - as long as there was fat with the population they were quite sharing their lives and the standard of living quickly rose to unprecedented heights in history. The Soviet owner could not achieve this in all 70 years, even close. Why is there prosperity, for 70 years they have not learned to grow cereals in sufficient quantities - this is the whole essence of the state in the role of an owner. Zero efficiency.
          1. Artyom Karagodin
            Artyom Karagodin 28 December 2020 21: 29
            +1
            Avon where did you take you, my dear ... There is not a word in both the article and my commentary about "reviving the Soviet legacy". And what does the USSR have to do with it? If you want to argue on this topic, then you are doing it under the wrong publication. Or the wrong commentator.
          2. Essex62
            Essex62 29 December 2020 09: 55
            +1
            Who shared with the population and where? Who's living standard has improved? What time? In Moscow and St. Petersburg and a mustache. Stop smoking. He is a bourgeois only for himself and for himself, people are only a means for him, money is an icon. For three hundred percent of the margin, he will go for any crime, he will sell his mother, because there is neither conscience nor humanity.
            In 70 years, we got hold of a counter, then another crusade, rushed into space, created the most social state in the world, where everyone was warm and comfortable. Where the old people should not, the last bit of strength to get a piece of bread. Where they could not just throw a person out of work on the combed right heel. Your rotten capitalism.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      29 December 2020 07: 06
      +2
      Quote: Artyom Karagodin
      Moreover, such a scheme simply needs to be applied in the extraction of other minerals

      "Note, I did not suggest it!" (from) hi
      1. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 29 December 2020 18: 18
        +1
        Why, Arkady Varlamych, do you disagree request ?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          30 December 2020 08: 24
          0
          Quote: Artyom Karagodin
          Why, Arkady Varlamych, do you disagree

          I agree :) Moreover, I wrote about it in the cycle of the USSR 2.0. But it's nice that now it is suggested by someone other than me :)
          1. Artyom Karagodin
            Artyom Karagodin 30 December 2020 22: 10
            0
            It remains only to understand which proverb fits better here))). About the fact that smart thoughts come to smart heads at the same time, or about the fact that thoughts converge at ... In general, it's understandable. laughing what
  • Million
    Million 28 December 2020 20: 15
    0
    Putin has neither the desire, nor the strength, nor the ability to take a piece from those who now have it
    1. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin 28 December 2020 21: 26
      -2
      Perhaps you will not be interested in someone else's opinion, but Putin has the will, but regarding the possibilities, you are right. Moreover, he is not the only one who does politics in the country.

      And as for the desire - in my opinion, everything is more complicated. It's just that his entire period of reign passed under the sign of restoration, where the main principle is “do no harm”. So he avoids drastic steps, trying to squeeze the maximum out of the existing system of public administration, the foundations of which, by the way, he did not lay. Although we are approaching or have already come to the line beyond which the system itself needs reconstruction. What will happen next - we'll see.
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 28 December 2020 20: 18
    +6
    God damn him gentlemen ...
    At the dawn of distant youth ... All this crap ... Belonged to the state of the USSR.
    What is typical ... No one even bothered how / where the profits went there. Because everyone knew, the budget of the country.
    I cannot understand, what is the problem to do the same?
    In '14 in Crimea, all enterprises were stupidly nationalized. And no one really objected. Moreover, the population welcomed it.
    Those. such experience already exists. What is the problem to consolidate success?
    1. NKT
      NKT 28 December 2020 20: 39
      0
      Are you sure that the state will be an effective manager? Look, Rosgeologia was created, from what was left of the institutes and what? Funding comes from the budget, reports are written for show, for the development of this very budget. Compare the performance of NOVATEK and Gazprom.
      Isn't it easier for the state to just take taxes?
      1. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 28 December 2020 21: 02
        +2
        Of course, it’s easier for the state to take taxes. What it actually does. And all who can, stupidly shy away from them.
        I, not a president, but I am categorically convinced that it is time for the state under the proud name of the Russian Federation to end up avoiding fulfilling its direct responsibilities for actually entering the government.
        And finally start to rule the country. Moreover, apparently it is necessary to steer manually.
        And curtail all this divorced democracy.
        Otherwise, luck / order will not be seen.
        All more or less important projects must be controlled by the president. And at least weekly. Mandatory landing in case of unreasonable failure.
        The only way. I don't see any other method ...
  • Keyser soze
    Keyser soze 28 December 2020 20: 27
    -2
    New economic policy? laughing

    This is not a very solid proposal, for reasons:

    1. The author proposes, in one area, the transition from oligarchic capitalism to state capitalism, with deviations towards socialist state regulation. And such a compote simply does not exist in the economy and society. Generally in nature ... laughing

    2. How does the state manage?
    But the state has recently learned to work well with such in the implementation of the State Defense Order.


    Is it true? Well then, you'd better contact the Chinese - those over there are definitely doing a good job with a defense order ... laughing
    Or you will get a mess in the oil industry and lobbying as in the State Defense Order. Or is it not how I read articles on VO, yes Andrey?

    3. Socialism
    Accordingly, the enterprises of the oil and gas production complex will cease to own the oil and gas they have produced.


    And you immediately return to the planned economy, and all foreign investments disappear from Russia in 3 days. And all oil and gas will be arrested immediately after crossing the border, due to claims of foreign shareholders of your oil industry. In general, on the fifth day, return to the state of the Russian principalities, before the reign of Ivan III.
    No, in general that is possible, but then let's immediately find Stalin and Lavrenty Palych, otherwise no one else will effectively cope with the re-construction of communism and justice. laughing

    In general, this is economic naivism, naivism, or whatever the word is spelled ... but it is fun and pleasant to read ... but no, justice cannot be built like that, and is it needed in the economy? For good, justice should be built on the state level , not a single industry.
    1. Petrol cutter
      Petrol cutter 28 December 2020 20: 40
      +3
      Justice, especially the state ... This is such a utopia ... What ... There is even no point in discussing ...
      These are such high matters that it becomes even scary to climb into such a jungle ...
      Here is the first thesis - I liked it.
      By the way, like the term planned economy.
      This is by no means bad!
      Planning is always rather buzzing!
      1. Keyser soze
        Keyser soze 28 December 2020 20: 49
        -2
        Justice, especially the state ...


        Yes, I tried to answer so cheerfully and without complicating it ... New Year, positive, and I like the author and the article is funny, although I do not agree with it ... hi
    2. hhhhhhh
      hhhhhhh 28 December 2020 21: 08
      +3
      Is a planned economy bad? Why corporations with the budget of the Russian Federation are planning, but the Russian Federation cannot.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      29 December 2020 07: 18
      +2
      Quote: Keyser Soze
      The author proposes in one area the transition from oligarchic capitalism to state capitalism, with deviations towards socialist state regulation

      The author proposes actions that more than fit into Keynesian market theory
      Quote: Keyser Soze
      Is it true? Well then, you'd better contact the Chinese - those over there are definitely doing a good job with a defense order ...

      And let's not juggle. It was about cost control.
      Quote: Keyser Soze
      And you immediately return to the planned economy, and all foreign investments disappear from Russia in 3 days.

      Don't talk nonsense, it hurts. First, there is no return to a planned economy. Secondly, even if there were, the capitalists, so you know, are interested in profit, and not in the structure of the country in which they are investing. Accordingly, in the pre-war USSR, entire factories were built by "damned capitalists". Thirdly, no investments will disappear from us, because there are no investments in essence. The bulk of "investments" in the Russian Federation is speculative capital, the presence / absence of which makes us neither cold nor hot.
      Quote: Keyser Soze
      And all oil and gas will be arrested immediately after crossing the border, due to claims of foreign shareholders of your oil industry

      And the fantasy of pure spill flooded. Do you even understand what you are writing? :) Firstly, the transformations I propose can be done in accordance with the legislation and no court will pick on them. Secondly, the shareholder owns SHARES, which he can sell at any time if they do not suit him. Thirdly, the investment conditions are such that you cannot demand something in court in a similar situation. This is the basics of a market economy, for which you "drown", but which you do not know. And fourthly, an attempt to arrest energy carriers will lead to one thing - they will no longer be shipped. Europe today CANNOT give up our oil and gas. I could have given up for a long time. That is, even if there were all the prerequisites for this (and they will not be) no one will impose any sanctions on oil and gas.
      Quote: Keyser Soze
      In general, this is economic naivism

      Only in your mind, tormented by pseudo-market cliches
      1. Keyser soze
        Keyser soze 29 December 2020 11: 31
        0
        The author proposes actions that more than fit into Keynesian market theory


        And which part exactly? In the one that commands governments to regulate the market with monetary and fiscal measures, or in the one that punishes the distribution of money that they do not have in order to stimulate the economy? Keynes in no way into the planned economy.

        transformations can be done according to the legislation and no court will pick on them.


        How about Yukos? laughing Have seen such transformations .... and yes, The Hague is just the foundation. All the fun is yet to come.

        Or what about Gazprom? Which the EU has stuck with several billion euros?

        and then the official will be asked for it in full;


        Incredible naivety. It is difficult to ask officials in countries with a much more developed judicial system and an insignificant share of corruption, but your bureaucrats will just go, with several euro wagons, to their pitchfork in Nice.

        from our oil and gas producers in bulk currency, so they prefer to buy imported equipment. If their proceeds become ruble ...


        And what will you invent equipment for the oil industry that you could not make in the USSR? All complex deposits depend on US technology, which is under sanctions.

        these very owners would have to put up with clenched teeth


        25% of Gazprom is the owners of ADRs. Then the Hague will seem like a walk to you ... laughing

        Europe today CANNOT give up our oil and gas.


        Still no. But let's see:

        China - ban on the sale of cars with internal combustion engines - 2030
        EU - ban on the sale of cars with internal combustion engines - 2030/25/35

        BP and Royal Duch Shell reports - oil may never recover.

        Your oil and gas industry is under severe pressure. First, there is huge competition in Europe and low prices, and third, forecasts for falling consumption. And yes - American sanctions. So they can come up with anything economically. And what can you do? Throw BoNbu?

        And you are offering it is not clear what, where investors will clench their teeth and put up? Unrealistic. History shows that this is Gazprom gritting its teeth and putting up, not investors ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          29 December 2020 12: 34
          +1
          Quote: Keyser Soze
          And which part exactly? In the one that commands governments to regulate the market with monetary and fiscal measures or in the one that punishes the distribution of money that you do not have in order to stimulate the economy

          My advice to you - do not be lazy, read at least "Economics" from Bru and McConnell. What is Keynesian theory, and its differences from monetarism, you obviously do not know.
          Quote: Keyser Soze
          How about Yukos?

          fool Clear. That is, for you that tax evasion, that changes in the legislation of the Russian Federation - you see no difference. And even more so, you don't see that, despite the Yukos case, no one is arresting any oil.
          You have problems not only with facts, but also with logic. You give an example that directly refutes you. You write that everything is gone, that there are sanctions, that pressure, etc. etc. - That is, in your opinion, all the prerequisites for the withdrawal of oil are ...
          And there are no seizures and seizures of oil :)))) What a bad luck? How does this simple fact intersect with your stream of consciousness? No way.
          Truly, you do not know what you are writing :))))))
        2. Petrol cutter
          Petrol cutter 31 December 2020 21: 31
          0
          ". Thirdly, no investments from us will disappear anywhere, because in essence there is no investment. The bulk of the" investment "in the Russian Federation is speculative capital, the presence / absence of which makes us neither cold nor hot."
          I completely agree with the author on this issue.
  • 123456789
    123456789 28 December 2020 20: 59
    -1

    Sharikov: But what is there to propose? .. Otherwise they write, write ... Congress, some Germans ... my head swells! Take everything, and divide ...
  • hhhhhhh
    hhhhhhh 28 December 2020 21: 04
    0
    "the ability to patch holes as your own budget" means spending money on medicine, education, science
  • hhhhhhh
    hhhhhhh 28 December 2020 21: 07
    -1
    "Demand creates supply" is another myth))))) Funny people.)))
  • Alexy
    Alexy 28 December 2020 21: 07
    -2
    Sounds good, but it sounds like a utopia. Transfer to the state - how is it? Who exactly? Create some kind of new state structure that will deal with this? Will it not get bogged down in corruption, and how effective will it be? Otherwise, it can turn out like in Venezuela - there is oil, but there is no money. It seems to me that the experience of Norway in this matter is what we need.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      29 December 2020 07: 20
      0
      Quote: Alexy
      Transfer to the state - how is it? Who exactly? Create some kind of new state structure that will deal with this? Will it not get bogged down in corruption, and how effective will it be?

      I can give you examples of quite effective state corporations - the same Rostec, for example. In addition, the very mechanism of work can be built in such a way that corruption will be minimized, and certainly not more than today.
  • Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 28 December 2020 21: 15
    0
    Everyone has long understood everything.

    But to remind, where did the really popular presidential candidates, the occult surgeon and the peacemaker general go?

    Small politicians can grow into big ones. If they are not imprisoned, like Platoshkin, they will not be poisoned, like ... and they will be able to fly without a plane crash ...
    That is, not yet ...
  • north 2
    north 2 28 December 2020 21: 17
    -2
    so I doubt that the newly created State Council will have a headache on how to properly use the revenues Russia receives from the sale of oil and gas. The name of this body is very
    loud, and who are the members of this Council of State? And all the governors. Which are already in place
    cannot properly dispose of funds coming from the center to the regions. What are they there
    will decide at this State Council, if the Prime Minister and the government give them orders on the allocated funds every day, and they begin to move only when, either Putin calls them on the carpet, or the Investigative Committee presses them, or whoever from the residents on they will complain during Putin's press conference. That's what needs to be decided and with whom, with stupid thieving governors and some ministers are not much smarter than who to put in their place, and not to invite such to the State Council. It is necessary to find many people like Shoigu. I wonder if Shoigu would have found many of his own leaders if he became President of Russia?
  • fif21
    fif21 28 December 2020 21: 27
    +3
    The state already has leverage to take away superprofits from the oil and gas sector. Nationalization in the capitalist country of the Russian Federation is unpromising. Speaking about the oil and gas sector, for some reason we forget about other minerals, the income from the sale of which goes "past the cash desk" (the budget of the Russian Federation) or is minimal, thanks to financial specialists. These are: diamonds, gold, rare earth metals and ores, coal, salts ... And the criminal (shadow) business of wood, alcohol, bioresources, amber .... How's that? What is being done besides ostentatious "landings"? Why is surplus income not progressively taxed? For 30 years of bourgeois power, it's time for the state to put things in order in tax collection. It is not necessary to increase excise taxes and tax pensions from NPFs. hi
  • Sergey Nemov
    Sergey Nemov 28 December 2020 22: 03
    +10
    How our country can use oil and gas revenues correctly

    We can think and offer many ideas, but the authorities will decide everything without our opinion.
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 28 December 2020 22: 09
    +2
    The only solution is to take back our bowels to the state. They want to drill and sell oil by the Welkom watchmakers for rent a plot and go ahead and do everything at their own expense. And then some kind of garbage, the entire country developed the industry and then came for the gift of a private trader and the state from all the work, only a small part in the form of taxes. Something under the union all the same deeds were not worse in oil and were traded completely under the state roof. And income and profit, as it were, are logically greater than the tax on it.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 28 December 2020 22: 21
    0
    That is, they will have to coordinate their expenses with the state (in the military-industrial complex, this is done through the institute of military representatives), and they will receive their honest 20% profitability for their own costs and 1% for the services of their contractors.

    If the analogy with the military-industrial complex is appropriate, then they will simply stand up and refuse to work until they are directly financed with advance payments. Moreover, just as in the military-industrial complex, everything and everyone must be financed from the state, then here too they will forgive money for everything, for exploration, development, separately for the creation of infrastructure, etc. And by analogy with the military-industrial complex, where total inefficiency in terms of labor productivity is likely to repeat the scenario.
    Most importantly, who will be struggling in a field that requires huge capitalization with 20 percent exhaust, and at least 30 percent with long payback periods?

    After all, the more their costs, the more profit they can earn. Now they will have to be “dragged by the ears” from such fields, but the development of relatively easy places of oil and gas deposits will become less profitable for them. If the order from the state for oil production is set in tons, then the less costs for a given volume the enterprise incurs, the less profit it will receive. Here, of course, the objection arises that oil and gas companies will inflate costs out of the blue ... Of course, they will. But the state has recently learned to work well with such in the implementation of the State Defense Order. There will be some excesses, but the overall situation will improve.


    This is about increasing efficiency. Why then generally optimize technical processes and increase production if the more costs the better? The dead end turns out. There will be a bunch of departments, like a military-industrial complex, a godfather, a brother, a matchmaker, a mass of engineers, dead souls and other human junk.

    The moment of the conjuncture.
    How to respond promptly to market fluctuations? Increase, say, production for sale. Government officials will assess when and how much? Are they interested? Are they competent? And then how to release the adjusted plan to the miners? Officials appointing the lucky ones again?
    How to cut production? And if the manufacturers push back, we will be so pleased to provide a guaranteed minimum order for 20 percent of the margin.

    And finally.
    Throughout the article, there is an almost childish belief in the goodwill and reason of the state. And the ruble will be treated more carefully, because it will kill the producers (it is doubtful that this will bother anyone in the government) and
    the budget will collapse, and then the official will be asked for it in full;

    Yeah, they'll ask twice.
    And the state has supposedly already learned how to deal with overpricing. Where is it from? For example, aren't components with military acceptance still an order of magnitude superior to those without it?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      29 December 2020 07: 22
      +1
      Quote: Engineer
      There will be a bunch of departments, like a military-industrial complex, a godfather, a brother, a matchmaker, a mass of engineers, dead souls and other human junk.

      Have you worked a lot in the military-industrial complex? I'm afraid you have an extremely perverse idea of ​​them.
      And I will also tell you this - today the same military-industrial complex enterprises are simply the leader in efficiency in comparison with many oil and gas workers.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 29 December 2020 10: 40
        0
        Have you worked a lot in the military-industrial complex?

        8 years.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          29 December 2020 11: 10
          0
          Quote: Engineer
          8 years.

          You are, apparently, very "lucky" with the enterprise. My experience is less than yours, but I somehow had the opportunity to look quite closely at 5 different military-industrial complex enterprises
          1. Engineer
            Engineer 29 December 2020 11: 11
            0
            I worked on two plus I visited the MiG.
            My conclusion is that you cannot work this way
            Threat Overpricing, say, for an RSG connector with military acceptance was 20 or more times.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              29 December 2020 15: 11
              0
              Quote: Engineer
              Threat Overpricing, say, for an RSG connector with military acceptance was 20 or more times.

              About what? :)
              Let's just say - if today we take an enterprise that works entirely for the defense industry, then it will not be able to put its costs in the amount of 100% in the cost estimate - the VP will not miss.
              1. Engineer
                Engineer 29 December 2020 15: 18
                0
                Relative to the price in a regular store.
                With bearings it was 10 times.

                I know that the VP checks for a license to work (namely manufacture) for the defense industry. Enterprises with such licenses are rolling out monstrous price tags. Wooden packing boxes of 400 thousand rubles in 2013 prices, etc.
                Contractors in Smolensk with a license supplied us with CNC-machined parts with a price tag 3-4 times higher than the market. It was still divine.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  30 December 2020 08: 10
                  0
                  Quote: Engineer
                  Relative to the price in a regular store.

                  So this is often more than justified. Very often, the military put forward special requirements for a product, for which a separate production line is generally needed, and they order several products a year.
                  Quote: Engineer
                  I know that the VP checks for a license to work (namely manufacturing) for the defense industry. Enterprises with such licenses are rolling out monstrous price tags.

                  Turn to your VPs, they solve the issue once or twice. Licenses are great, but if the products are supplied under the state defense order, then there is one of two things. Either they are the only suppliers or not. If not, look for others, you will find much cheaper. If - yes, they should agree on their prices with the VP, and YOUR VP can help you lower them if they are absurd.
                  I can't speak, but I bought similar boxes at a fraction of the price. Well ... or they are not wooden :))))))
  • iouris
    iouris 28 December 2020 23: 19
    +1
    "Do not confuse personal wool with the state one!" And the state with the country. In general, remember: selling oil and gas is a lot of money. And very big money like dead silence ... In short, don't get in, otherwise ... "instantly into the sea."
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 28 December 2020 23: 47
    -1
    dear Andrey from Chelyabinsk is still young, everything looks beautiful but will not work, It is the NDPI that is the realization of the people's rights to subsoil resources, it needs to be doubled, but it is imperative to abolish VAT, UST, income tax, and property levies These vile tools for the destruction of national production and business cannot be canceled, then the NDPI cannot be increased and the crisis will only deepen because the total total taxes and levies in the Russian Federation are 115 percent already .... white business is officially prohibited.
  • zenion
    zenion 29 December 2020 00: 19
    +3
    Such an article was sculpted in order to write about Navalny at the end. It does not reach the authorities, just as it does not reach lice and fleas, that if they drink all the blood of a person, they themselves will die. But they keep drinking. Not for the purpose of filling up the USSR, that would think about the people. This is what it can get to, you have to sell football teams, and yachts and go to work like a real person about whom God said - and you will get food for yourself in the sweat of your brow. They keep all their stashes, like those in the 17th year of the last century, in banks over the hill, and they will drink blood and have somewhere to run away. If the opportunity to escape they would not have disappeared bloodsuckers. It's time for the people to think about how our fathers and grandfathers did during the war - we protect not only the country, but also our children and our grandchildren. Smashed to smithereens the West, smash the people to smithereens the leaders of the workers' feudal society, where mine is mine and yours is mine!
  • t-12
    t-12 29 December 2020 00: 26
    +1
    I do not understand anything. Income from the export of raw materials is the currency. To which (private or public - it does not matter) you can import overseas goods. Nothing else can be done with currency. But goods that are important for industry (means of production, technology) will not be sold to us, and any consumer goods (like iPhones) will not bring us much benefit. Everything else is lyric and sophistry.
  • savage1976
    savage1976 29 December 2020 00: 35
    -4
    I remember not so long ago there was a country that had a stable ruble-dollar exchange rate for decades and all resources, subsoil and means of production belonged to the state. But for some reason it did not save him from disappearing at the time of a sharp drop in oil prices. As prices fell, so the store shelves emptied along with the treasury (budget) and the country rushed to be divided into pieces.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      29 December 2020 07: 28
      +1
      Quote: savage1976
      I remember not so long ago there was a country that had a stable ruble-dollar exchange rate for decades and all resources, subsoil and means of production belonged to the state. But for some reason it didn't save him from disappearing

      And there was also a state in which the market economy was developing rapidly, but it lasted only 11 years, and its collapse was terrible. Hitler's Germany is called. Do you see how dangerous a market economy can be? laughing
      What? Germany fell in 1945 for other reasons? Then, perhaps, you will be able to draw an analogy and understand that it was not at all a stable exchange rate and the ownership of oil by the state that ruined the USSR
      1. savage1976
        savage1976 29 December 2020 09: 29
        -1
        And for some reason, all the fighters for the people's happiness are equal to the retirement loser of Germany, which does not have any oil or special resources, and not the retirement of the victorious planned economy. Yes, the reason is not only the price of oil, but the impossibility of the very essence of universal equality. Since equality is universal, so the pictures of the local scribe Ivan Ivanovich should be equated with the pictures of Shishkin, Aivazovsky and others and included in the heritage of world culture. All are equal. But no, we will call those who cultivate the land well with their fists, dispossess them, and then we will be surprised by the famine and devastation in the villages. It turns out that not everyone is equal, otherwise anyone would have replaced Korolev and Stalin and Zhukov. There is no difference or it still exists ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          29 December 2020 09: 46
          +2
          Quote: savage1976
          And for some reason, all the fighters for the people's happiness are equal to the retirement loser of Germany

          You may ask, what does this speech of yours have to do with my article or my comment?
          Quote: savage1976
          Yes, the reason is not only the price of oil, but the impossibility of the very essence of universal equality.

          Tell me, did you study the reasons for the death of the USSR in the newspaper "Speed-info"?
          To begin with, there was never any idea of ​​"universal equality" in your understanding in the USSR. In the USSR, the equality of citizens before the law and equality of opportunities were affirmed. That is, both the minister and the janitor are equal before the law, and any person, regardless of birth, can become a minister. But no one put an equal sign between the minister and the janitor.
          Under Stalin, in the pre-war period, a worker earned an average of about 400 rubles, but if he worked hard, he could earn up to 1200 rubles. And a professor engaged in science and having real achievements could earn 10-15 thousand rubles. At the same time, such a professor was also entitled to a lot, including a departmental apartment, a personal driver, etc. etc.
          But the so-called "leveling" started by Khrushchev should be considered one of the reasons for the death of the USSR. But even there there was no talk of equality, just the differentiation of remuneration ceased to be essential and to motivate for labor exploits.
          Quote: savage1976
          But no, we will call those who cultivate the land well with their fists, dispossess them, and then we will be surprised by the famine and devastation in the villages.

          Have you tried to study history? While Russia was an agrarian country, and the basis of its agriculture were those when you identified them as "good cultivators of the land", most of the population of Russia was made up of peasants, but at the same time, famine regularly occurred in the country.
          After dispossession of kulaks (and, alas, the excesses and mistakes associated with it), the country turned from an agrarian into an industrial one (the bulk of the population is workers and employees), the share of peasants decreased several times, and hunger disappeared.
          That is, in fact, the USSR has achieved a better result at less cost than your efficient farmers. I can even tell you why, but it will take a long time ... Another question is that at some point the collective and state farms also exhausted themselves and demanded further development, but this was not done. However, at that time there was no other way out.
          1. savage1976
            savage1976 29 December 2020 11: 04
            -1
            1. This "speech" has to do with the market and planned economy.
            2. For some reason, as for the issue of the achievements of socialism, so immediately free apartments that appeared precisely thanks to Khrushchev, flight into space thanks to Khrushchev, but he was one of the culprits of the beginning of the end of the USSR. So maybe it's not about equalization, but about giving freebies to everyone? So you are proposing the same again. As always, history teaches that it teaches nothing. Even now, a worker may well earn both a monthly salary and a 25 monthly salary, everything is in his hands, he just needs to work with his head, and a professor may well earn both a monthly salary and a million monthly salaries, it is only necessary not only to wear a professor's status, but also to put it into practice.
            3. The country changed from an agrarian to an industrial one, from 85% of the rural population and 15% of the urban population, 85% of the urban and 15% of the rural, but the village was destroyed by Putin. (here laughter).
            4.Yes, there were hungry years in the agrarian country, but before the famine of collectivization that fed the country, they probably all need to be added to equalize. And do not forget that the agrarian country was the largest exporter of food, and this was with horses instead of tractors and manure instead of organic and chemical fertilizers, and an industrial country has been a buyer of food abroad for almost its entire history, and this is with tractors, electricity and organic and chemical fertilizers. It is interesting, for whom were the huge chemical plants for the production of fertilizers built, if only pure food products were grown in the country?
            5. And for what reason did the collective and state farms not receive further development along with the aviation industry, the auto industry, the electronics industry and many other areas? Apparently they did not fit into the planned economy.
            6. And yes, I agree with you, the current development of Russia is a dead end, it needs to be changed, the question is, for what? Where I disagree with you is the fact that it has already led the country to a dead end once. A planned economy is good when there are people in power who “don't change the rank and file for generals,” but are there many of them around? Units per million. The majority of people want something completely different and it is impossible to raise other people artificially, they will still be led to a shiny toy in the hands of another child (someone else's toy is always better than their own).
            7. Ra you stands for the fact that all the bowels of the earth belong to the state, so it is necessary that everything that the earth produces also belong to the state, as well as sand, clay and everything else, and grain to the state and grass to the state and a brick made of sand, clay, rubble must also belong to the state, and the underpants that we wear must also belong to the state, because they are made of cotton that has grown from the land belonging to the state. Or are the panties yours? Did you pay for them? So why the cowards made from the resources of the earth and bought by you can have an owner, and the oil extracted from the resources of the earth cannot have an owner other than the state? So if the bowels of the earth are national property, then it cannot be extracted, extracting resources, we rob future generations by depriving them of these resources.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              29 December 2020 12: 06
              0
              Quote: savage1976
              This "speech" has to do with market and planned economies.

              That is, your speech has nothing to do with the article or the commentary. Thank you for being honest about this and writing
              Quote: savage1976
              For some reason, as for the issue of the achievements of socialism, so immediately free apartments that appeared precisely thanks to Khrushchev, flight into space thanks to Khrushchev, but he was one of the culprits of the beginning of the end of the USSR.

              I understand that you really want to talk about the USSR, but the article is not about that.
              Quote: savage1976
              So maybe it's not about equalization, but about giving freebies to everyone? So you are proposing the same again.

              Do not write nonsense, please. State ownership of oil and gas is in no way "giving away freebies to everyone." In our case, the state withdraws super-profits from trade in them with the help of mineral extraction tax, in the one I propose - in a different way. In both cases, there are purely market relations (competition for the right to develop deposits).
              If there is anything to do with a planned economy, it is rationalism in field development (and not like now), a systematic approach to seismic exploration (and not like now) - that is, just those areas where the "invisible hand of the market" has completely screwed up.
              Quote: savage1976
              A worker even now may well earn both a monthly minimum and 25 a minimum, everything is in his hands,

              It's strange. When I discuss market relations, you are referring to the USSR for some reason. When I speak from your submission about the USSR - run into market relations :))))))
              Why are you talking about the topic?
              Quote: savage1976
              Yes, in the agrarian country there were hungry years, but before the famine of collectivization that fed the country, they probably all need to be added to equalize.

              Right. Only one thing you do not understand.
              Hunger during dispossession was not determined. It was not necessary for dispossession of kulaks, and was the result of a lot of mistakes, including in planning. The course towards collectivization was correct, but the implementation was wrong.
              To make it clearer for you. The man, hammering in a nail, hit himself in the finger with a hammer and broke it. That doesn't mean he didn't need to hammer in a nail. This means that he needed to do it more carefully.
              Quote: savage1976
              And for what reason did the collective and state farms not receive further development along with the aviation industry, the auto industry, the electronics industry and many other areas?

              Generally speaking, many have received it; it is a sin for you to "roll a barrel" to the same aviation industry. But your thought is clear to me.
              So, the main reason was that the methods of the planned economy used under Khrushchev and further could support only extensive development, but not intensive. That is, the methods of management, generally speaking, also had to evolve, but they were simply not allowed to evolve in the right direction. And there were prerequisites for this, and if, instead of leveling and emasculated socialist competition for the banners, an approximately Stalinist system of grading salary + cost accounting were built, the situation would be completely different. With the reforms of the 60s, they tried to carry out this, but it did not work out ... the leaders did not approve, which is why the reform came out half-hearted.
              / A planned economy in its pure form cannot exist, of course, but a reasonable crossover with a market economy is possible, and will work better than a market or planned one.
              Quote: savage1976
              Ra you stands for the fact that all the bowels of the earth belong to the state, so it is necessary that everything that the earth produces also belong to the state, as well as sand, clay and everything else, and grain to the state and grass to the state and a brick made of sand, clay, rubble must also belong to the state,

              Come on :)))) Even today, in quite capitalist Russia, a lot of everything belongs to the state. And nothing. Don't exaggerate.
              1. savage1976
                savage1976 29 December 2020 12: 28
                -1
                Much is simply inconvenient to cover on the forum, so in many ways the messages seem chaotic and not entirely clear, but are directly related to the article. The planned economy and the state. Ownership of the subsoil has a lot of advantages, but they are good during crises, when there is a question of the survival of a person or a state, in peaceful calm times, the planned economy and the state. Ownership of something, on the contrary, stops the development of a person from the country. And your proposals on the nationalization of gas and oil will not lead to anything good either for the country or for any particular person. We, the country, thanks to the first state. The coup in 1917 took everything away from the owners and divided it up so that no one got anything thanks to the second state. The coup in 1991 made it possible to take away everything created by the country from someone who is faster and more agile and we live in the period of primary accumulation of capital. Any cardinal decisions in the field of property rights to something will only lead to another deterioration in the life of the country and any resident of the country in particular, and not to the stabilization of the ruble, saturation of the budget or something else good. Any sudden movements first lead to a catastrophic worsening of the situation and only then something worthwhile may or may not come out.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  30 December 2020 08: 20
                  +1
                  Quote: savage1976
                  in peaceful times, the planned economy and the state. Ownership of something, on the contrary, stops the development of a person from the country

                  Well, but in the European Union they do not know about this, why at the beginning of the 2000s more than 8 million people worked at state-owned enterprises in Europe, which was about 11% of all employees. State-owned enterprises in Europe then produced more than 12,5% ​​of the total GDP of the European Union. And in Italy, for example, more than 40% of GNP is produced in state-owned enterprises.
                  An insistent recommendation - get rid of the noodles that the adherents of the "invisible hands of the market" used to hang on our ears. I am not trying to offend you in any way, and in general - Happy New Year! My negativity is directed specifically at the noodles.
                  1. Liam
                    Liam 30 December 2020 08: 27
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    And in Italy, for example, more than 40% of GNP is produced in state-owned enterprises.

                    ))) Is it easy to list them?
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      30 December 2020 08: 49
                      0
                      State-owned enterprises completely controlled railway transport, radio, television, telephone communications, the majority of aviation and sea transport, electricity, mining, shipbuilding, military industries, credit and banking. They account for 94% of pig iron smelting, 95% of non-ferrous metals, 58% of steel, 97% of natural gas production, 63% of rolled metal production, 30% of chemical products, approximately 20% of mechanical engineering products, etc.
                      If we take large concerns, then these are IRI (Institute of Industrial Reconstruction), ENI (National Liquid Fuel Administration) and EFIM (Management of Shareholdings and Financing of the Manufacturing Industry)
                      1. Liam
                        Liam 30 December 2020 12: 58
                        -1
                        ))))

                        After the revelations about Italian farmers harvesting two crops a year, your deep economic knowledge is unlikely to surprise me. But nevertheless, since you are promoting yourself as the main site of the site in the genre of pseudo-economic noodles for dummies, then at least do not copy and paste any nonsense from the ceiling ...
                        The Italian state property from Iran was privatized in the 80s and early 90s. The IRI itself was liquidated in 2002. The share of the state in the ENI is 4,34%. And so on according to the list.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        30 December 2020 15: 16
                        0
                        Quote: Liam
                        The Italian state property from Iran was privatized in the 80s and early 90s.

                        As far as I remember, a little 10 years later. In 1992 there was a transformation into a joint-stock company, but I do not remember that all the shares were transferred to private investors.
                        Quote: Liam
                        The share of the state in the EIW is 4,34%.

                        Today. And at the turn of the 2000s?
                        But the funny thing is: let's say you are right about everything. In this case, we see that a significant share of the state in the economy somehow did not prevent Italy from developing in a capitalist channel for decades - the same IRI has existed since 1933.
                      3. Liam
                        Liam 30 December 2020 16: 06
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        a significant share of the state in the economy somehow did not interfere

                        It is rather strange for a person positioning himself as an economist to offer recipes 2021/50 years ago for 100. This is called degradation and not development. There is not a single developed state that today would create state corporations. On the contrary, everyone is reducing the share of participation, privatization and liberalization.
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        30 December 2020 21: 37
                        0
                        Quote: Liam
                        Quite strange for a person positioning himself as an economist to propose recipes for 2021 50/100 years ago.

                        This is wonderful for you. Because you have a very poor understanding of what you undertake to judge.
                        Quote: Liam
                        This is called degradation, not development.

                        By saying this, you are making 2 mistakes.
                        Mistake # 1 - You absolutely do not understand that blind copying in economics does not lead to anything. Let me explain with an example. Your neighbor has built a house for himself, and is doing the finishing work - he glues the wallpaper. You haven't started construction yet, but you need a house. Therefore, your task is to start digging a foundation pit and laying the foundation. To do this, you will need at least a shovel and concrete. You now propose to dig and lay the foundation, armed with wallpaper, glue and a stepladder, because a neighbor does this, but you don’t want to take a shovel, because a neighbor has already put it aside. Accordingly, you consider the shovel degradation :)))))
                        In fact, there are quite specific economic tasks that we need to solve, and we need tools to solve them. Italy, for example, has completely different tasks in the economy today, for which different tools are needed, and to think that "doing what it is" we will achieve success is that naivism that led us from collapse to collapse in the post-Soviet economy.
                        Mistake number 2 - the scheme I propose does not require the organization of state enterprises / state corporations, so you reproach me for what I am not proposing
            2. savage1976
              savage1976 31 December 2020 01: 49
              0
              Well, look at what areas of activity are carried out by these state. Enterprises in Europe, almost all perform the functions of life support and transport, and most of them are initially unprofitable and operate in a state. Support. That is, it is in the sphere of the survival of the individual and the state that various reforms are constantly underway related to the privatization of these areas and nationalization with unsuccessful reform attempts. At the same time, it should be noted that the economic locomotive of the EU is France and Germany, where the state's share in the economy is minimal, and Italy, with its 40% state. For some reason, the economy is not the locomotive of the EU economy. How de so? It should be the opposite according to your training manual. I didn't have the slightest goal to pry you with the training manuals. And about the invisible hand of the market, these are your noodles, so remove them from your ears yourself.
  • Essex62
    Essex62 29 December 2020 10: 37
    0
    The bullshit, the tales of the counter to the usurped power.
  • Konnick
    Konnick 29 December 2020 01: 42
    +2
    Nothing will change. This state was not created for this:

    The main thing that let us down was the colossal gap between the rhetoric of the reformers and their real actions ... And it seems to me that the Russian leadership surpassed the most fantastic ideas of the Marxists about capitalism: they considered that the state's business was to serve a narrow circle of capitalists, pumping into their pockets as much money as possible and sooner. This is not shock therapy. This is a malicious, deliberate, well-thought-out action, aimed at a large-scale redistribution of wealth in the interests of a narrow circle of people

    These are the words of one of the founders of modern Russia, the author of the phrase:
    "Privatization of the oil and gas industry is a mistake of the Russian government"
    His name is Jeffrey Sachs, from the fall of 1991 to January 1994 he was the head of a group of economic advisers to Russian President Boris Yeltsin. In 1998, Sachs negatively assessed a number of actions by Russian reformers. It may sound strange, but this naive American thought about the people, not the oligarchs.
  • Konnick
    Konnick 29 December 2020 01: 46
    +1
    Quote: 123456789
    Sharikov: But what is there to propose? .. Otherwise they write, write ... Congress, some Germans ... my head swells! Take everything, and divide ...

    What Chubais did - he gave everyone a voucher fellow
  • Konnick
    Konnick 29 December 2020 01: 49
    0
    Quote: Million
    Putin has neither the desire, nor the strength, nor the ability to take a piece from those who now have it

    "... well, let him channel"
  • Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 29 December 2020 05: 36
    +3
    Dear Andrey! You just don't seem to understand that the appropriation of the country's natural resources by a narrow group of corrupt individuals is what it is. essence and purpose of the current Russian state! That is why the USSR was destroyed!
    And now they are cheerfully pumping the loot to the West, buying up real estate there, their kids are already there, and they are still here only because they can't get drunk in any way. So your idea, in principle, will not work under the current government. And with any other too. For the essence of our policy comes down to one thing - to fight for a place at the trough.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      29 December 2020 07: 30
      0
      Quote: Sahalinets
      You just do not seem to understand that the appropriation of the country's natural resources by a narrow group of corrupt individuals is the essence and purpose of the current Russian state! That is why the USSR was destroyed!

      I understand :)))) But I can't prove it in court, so ... so.
    2. Essex62
      Essex62 29 December 2020 11: 18
      0
      The "feeder" should be general, strictly regulated and controlled. Citizens themselves must make sure that the sly and arrogant individual does not tear himself a piece of flesh, as it was in the 50-60s in the USSR. But when the citizens are indifferent and even approving of the actions of the hucksters, it turns out that a counter-party comes to power.
      1. Sahalinets
        Sahalinets 29 December 2020 11: 29
        0
        Google "The Iron Law of the Oligarchy".
        1. Essex62
          Essex62 29 December 2020 12: 17
          0
          Under the real dictatorship of the proletariat, the oligarchy has a place, at best, with a pick in cold lands. There will be no aligarchy, no bourgeois in general, and no private property in general.
          I am constantly amazed by the comrades of the Social Democrats, everyone is striving to mold capitalist relations with the socialist socialist and guarantees to the working people, it will not work, if not dodge. Only a ban on personal enrichment, with the most severe control, up to ... is able to eliminate this contradiction. And no need to nod at Norway, this village is smaller than some regions of the Russian Federation and the people there "cried a lot." By the way, they live very communally. Socialism is almost, mayors go to work on foxes and trams. laughing
          1. Sahalinets
            Sahalinets 29 December 2020 13: 17
            0
            Do you read it? Maybe you will understand at least something ...
            1. Essex62
              Essex62 30 December 2020 06: 36
              0
              I understood everything for a long time and for the rest of my life, accepted and consider it the only true, correct and just.
              I read a lot and mostly modern publications revolve around an already accomplished fact, the victory of the bourgeois as a result of the carelessness and indifference of the mass of Soviet citizens. How to equip not equipable.
              But I will re-read Comrade Stalin, he has a lot to find, especially for today.
              So, what about understanding your children you will teach.
  • Serpet
    Serpet 29 December 2020 15: 58
    +11
    The analytics are interesting and make sense. The author has done some research. Article offset, we look forward to continuing good
  • Graduate student
    Graduate student 29 December 2020 16: 47
    +9
    protection was provided for both the budget and those who play a very significant role in filling it - oil and gas producers. True, this was achieved at the expense of all other spheres of the economy and the bulk of the population, but who cares about them?

    That's it. When this bourgeois-oligarchic power was interested in the protection of the non-settlement ...
    The main thing for them is the oil and gas sector of the economy and its stability. And the people ... And what about the people? Get out.
  • Graduate student
    Graduate student 29 December 2020 16: 47
    +9
    when oil is expensive abroad, Gazprom and Co. will swim in money, but when it collapses in price, the company's activities will go into negative territory

    No, it won't go negative. At such a moment, they immediately remember the people and raise the price of gasoline, if only the company flourished yes
  • Graduate student
    Graduate student 29 December 2020 16: 47
    +7
    in this case, the surplus profits of such companies can be spent on internal consumption (say, billions of dollars in salaries, offices made of pure gold, etc.) - and the tax will be paid from a “small share” of their real profits.

    It may be so, but only at the expense of their own funds after tax. Thus, the tax will be paid on a "large share". And all expenses for own needs are not included in the tax calculation.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      30 December 2020 08: 12
      0
      Quote: Graduate student
      And all expenses for own needs are not included in the tax calculation.

      Alas, it doesn't work that way. It will then not be income tax, but something completely incomprehensible
  • Graduate student
    Graduate student 29 December 2020 16: 48
    +7
    They must become the property of our people, the property of the state.

    The bourgeois-oligarchic government will never agree to this!
  • Graduate student
    Graduate student 29 December 2020 16: 49
    +8
    if society desires something, then sooner or later a political force will appear that wants to satisfy these desires

    Society has been wanting a new political force for many years. But there is no new one. Doesn't appear.
  • Basarev
    Basarev 29 December 2020 21: 10
    0
    And if not only oil and gas? For example, communication, for example, transport ... The situation seems to be similar: cheap tickets and fares.
  • mil
    mil 30 December 2020 11: 35
    0
    You can leave the oil and gas sector as it is, but oil and gas can only be sold to the state, while the state sets prices as it needs. And remove all taxes. We will have a private business and everyone in the world is happy that the state is squeezing out capital.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 26 January 2021 22: 53
    0
    Stop, what about Volodin and his "Putin is our competitive advantage, we must take care of him"? smile
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 26 January 2021 22: 58
    +1
    What about the fact that the political space is artificially cleared of any competitors? And this gives the officials grounds for hypocritical and Russophobic statements: "If not Putin, then who?" (so insignificant, they say, citizens of the Russian Federation negative )
    Everyone, including Navalny, should be able to run and compete in elections.