Military Review

The Pyramid of Economics and the Return of the Stone Age

23
The Pyramid of Economics and the Return of the Stone AgeThe question of why Adam Smith decided that the level of the division of labor from some level can no longer go deeper for a closed market is of fundamental importance today. It’s not even our theory, after all, we’re not absolute geniuses, we can be wrong! But the conclusion that the modern world has plunged into a crisis from which there is no way out is too important to be ignored. So, we will try to speculate on the topic of Adam Smith’s conclusion once more.

Imagine a small farm in which only a few families live. Well, let's say, those who had escaped in the XIII century beyond the Urals and who founded the new settlement of the former Novgorodians there. Question: Can they have a blacksmith in the village? The answer is, in general, obvious. This can not be, because such a mini-village is simply not possible to feed him. No, someone may be more adept in working with iron, someone less, of course, they help each other, but they cannot afford a “clean” blacksmith - the increase in labor productivity for such a small system from quality work with iron too small to feed him for a year.

A completely different situation begins when the number of refugees grows and the number of families in the village becomes several dozen. The amount of arable land is growing, and a good plow becomes a serious help, and given the amount of work the village becomes profitable to acquire its own blacksmith. As soon as this happens, the rest of the workers who no longer have to work with the metal are released - and their productivity also increases.

At the same time, the blacksmith cannot deal with all sorts of nonsense. For example, he will not make bikes. And because it is too difficult for him (and the quality of steel, and processing, and some other things, such as rubber for tires, are too complicated for him), and because a sufficient surplus product is not created in the village to feed him and his family while he is developing toys.

Now imagine that in the village a collective farm was formed or a fist bought up all the land and made the inhabitants his farm laborers. It is already profitable for him to cultivate the land with a tractor, although it is impossible to make a tractor in the village. That is - here the level of division of labor is limited by the scale of the system. But if you go beyond it and, for example, get a tractor in leasing or from the state, its use dramatically increases labor productivity and creates a lot of problems. In particular, a significant part of the villagers become unemployed and must either die of hunger or master some crafts oriented towards sales to the foreign market.

Thus, we see a fairly typical picture: first, the level of the division of labor grows, then, at some point, it stops. At this point, it can be increased at the expense of the external market, but in itself this output destroys the internal system of division of labor. And if you do not enter the foreign market, then nothing happens, the system begins to stagnate.

As the system grows, it deepens the division of labor. If the city supplies tractors and bicycles in exchange for marketable grain, repair shops will appear in the villages. And in the city itself - though not production (if it is small), but in-depth repair and restoration. However, at some point, it also becomes necessary to gain access to foreign markets, since a small town cannot even master its own production of tractors, even with neighboring villages.

It is in this place that what S.Glazyev calls the “technological way” arises, and O. Grigoriev the level of economic development, low, medium or high industrial. This is a quantity that is very closely related to the number of citizens participating in the system of division of labor (and not generally the citizens living in this territory!), And, as is clear, as citizens grow, whether it is natural or due to the expansion of the division of labor, transition to the next level.

Thus, according to Oleg Grigoriev, the United States reached a highly industrial level as early as the 60s, and the USSR did not reach it, although in some sectors, due to the planned economic system, it approached this level. S. Glazyev provides a more subtle “tune-up” of the movement of technologies, but the essence does not change from this — from a certain moment a new way is impossible without expanding markets. It is for this reason that all those technological zones that have fallen into non-existence have lost. Here, however, there are some subtleties (for example, the USSR could win in 70-s), but they need to be disassembled separately.

Of course, the modern system of division of labor is much more difficult to disassemble than the rural one. But you can build an analogy here - with the help of a pyramid. In order to build on the next technological "floor" you need to have a fairly wide base. There should be an even wider basis for the previous technological structure, and so on, until there is a very widespread personal consumption. And it is impossible to refuse it, because people consume approximately the same thing (essentially): food, clothing, housing, health care, education for children. And if we replace the plow with a tractor, then we get the opportunity to build a new floor of the technological pyramid - but in order for the tractor manufacturer to build it, it is necessary that quite a large number of people donate part of the product created by their labor for development.

Of course, each next way changes the technology of the previous one - but not the products that it creates! And the use of new technologies makes it possible to free people who work in new industries (although they may not be very much). At the same time, when investments are made in new technologies, there is still no income from them - they will pay off only later, as they develop, for this reason the risks of new innovations are always great, and the further the NTP goes, the higher the risks.

Here, of course, there can be subtleties, for example, you can force consumption without the growth of markets - as the US did in 80-e - 00-e. Well, they (or rather, all of us now) and received the corresponding consequences, will not seem to be enough. And according to the results of the current crisis, we will return to a situation earlier in terms of the level of division of labor than the end of 70's, when it all began. Our country is an example of how much technology we have lost and how much our technological system has degraded.

There remains only one question - robotics. There are questions here, since, theoretically, today such a production model can be created. By reducing the number of people inhabiting the planet sharply. The only trouble is that if after this reduction something goes wrong (well, for example, robots will begin to degrade and maintain the technological level will not work), then you may have to return to the Stone Age. And there is no certainty that a robotized civilization will work out - even in modern manufacturing, various assumptions about the role of robots that were expressed at the end of 70's, have not been confirmed.

In any case, while Adam Smith’s considerations remain relevant, it means that the conclusion that the further development of scientific and technological progress in the former understanding of this word is impossible is also still valid.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.odnako.org
23 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. snek
    snek 4 October 2012 08: 33
    +5
    There remains only one question - robotics. There are questions here, since, theoretically, today such a production model can be created. By reducing the number of people inhabiting the planet sharply. The only trouble is that if after this reduction something goes wrong (well, for example, robots will begin to degrade and maintain the technological level will not work), then you may have to return to the Stone Age. And there is no certainty that a robotized civilization will work out - even in modern manufacturing, various assumptions about the role of robots that were expressed at the end of 70's, have not been confirmed.

    This is perhaps the most interesting paragraph of the material (basic truths are considered before that) and this paragraph is incredibly superficial. First, automation is constantly increasing in all areas and there are no signs of a decrease in this phenomenon and references to some statements of the 70s are not appropriate here. Secondly, what does it mean to maintain the technological level will not work? The whole idea is to dump the "dirty" work on robots, so that people have more time for education and self-improvement.
    So the material is very controversial
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 4 October 2012 08: 38
      +3
      Quote: snek
      The whole idea is to dump the "dirty" work on robots, so that people have more time for education and self-improvement.

      oops, you got ahead of me! While I pounded my multiline on the clave, you have already expressed the same thing in a couple of lines. But I am glad that our opinions coincided. Catch a plus and white envy to summarize .... -))))
      1. snek
        snek 4 October 2012 08: 56
        +1
        Well, plus you for the detail disclosure of the topic drinks
        In general, I have long come to the conclusion that large-scale automation and robotization of production (together with involving the liberated population in educational and cultural activities) is an ideal way for Russia. China can’t do this - too many people and social services. the tension will be too great, but we still have a chance, but the time period for its implementation is ending - we have a lot of money while we sell a lot of oil and gas, but we don’t have enough for a long time (especially oil).
    2. alexng
      alexng 4 October 2012 08: 57
      0
      Well, from a furious pussy came a reasonable statement. laughing
      I myself am engaged in the automation of technological processes and the entire evolution of technology is happening before my eyes. The article is so-so - pessimistic.
      The future is in Progress.
    3. Averias
      Averias 4 October 2012 09: 02
      0
      I understand that the author had in mind the complete replacement of man by a robot. And not in the form of an auxiliary tool. Although this is absurd (at least for now). If you create a fully robotic production, starting from the supply of raw materials and ending with the delivery of finished products to the customer - this is utopia. And then what will people freed from work do? And even if there is (I fantasize) full social security, benefits and so on - the people will start to go crazy because of boredom, they will begin to live bored, and from here it follows - drunkenness, drug addiction, crimes and in all serious ways. A small fraction will educate itself culturally and do something after receiving so much free time.
    4. Kaa
      Kaa 4 October 2012 17: 28
      +1
      Quote: snek
      so that people have more time for education and self-improvement.

      Are you sure that this time will be spent on self-improvement, and not, say, on self-satisfaction? I can imagine 10 or how many philosopher lards there are on Wall Street or on Bolotnaya ... or Tahrir ...
  2. aksakal
    aksakal 4 October 2012 08: 36
    +2
    Cool, we have already discussed this in detail.
    I wrote that I saw a couple of signs of a revolutionary situation - the Crisis, which Lenin described as "an aggravation above the usual troubles and hardships of the working people." The run over by Medvedev and the Kholmanskikhs, who are representatives of the authorities, on an excessive number of people with higher education and the associated lack of working people. A tough response from young people who do not want to waste their lives on being told in a "proletarian" state. That is, there is a conflict between the new productive forces represented by capricious youth and outdated production relations. Well, the upper classes cannot - the crisis is not resolved, except for the launch of the printing press, the upper classes have not come up with anything, and the lower classes - well, you can see from the numerous strikes in PIGS that they are not eager. This is not the case in Russia yet, but the trouble has begun.
    Khazin came to the same conclusions, but from his own standpoint, from the standpoint of the influence of the scientific and technological revolution on the way of life. Well, it says, what's the difference? I was taught in an institute on the work of old Lenin, he has scientific works in his part. The conclusion is still the same.
    The only thing is a bunch of questions for Khazin. There is only one question left - robotics. There are questions, because, theoretically, today such a production model can be created. At the same time, it drastically reduced the number of people inhabiting the planet - did not understand how it is interconnected? Why should the killing or in some other way the rapid reduction of people be an indispensable condition for the introduction of robotics? Robots (with a sufficiently significant refinement of them, which mankind, including Japan, did not even seriously do), with a real large-scale implementation, can produce anything, anything, of any quality, in any quantity and at any cost you want. To feed the rest is not the lot of people at all? Only kill? Khazin, you are a cannibal. I will note that in the previous technological order according to Khazin, with the expanded division of labor, many people were freed. Their idleness had to be somehow legitimized, well, so they made them feudal lords or landowners. They received the right not to do anything on a completely legal basis, i.e. to shine at balls, drag after the ladies, dress like a dandy, weave intrigues and so on. But some of these idlers, tired of idleness, retired to some thread of Boldino or Yasnaya Polyana, sculpted something there and made something that humanity now, at the present time, and close to something like it can not! For such "sculpting", more precisely, for such results, it is possible to support a larger number of idlers, if the indispensable condition for the appearance of one such "sculptor" is the maintenance of hundreds of idlers, among whom one such will appear. Yes, even a thousand such idlers - if only there was. Over the past 30 years, humanity has not created anything noticeable in general culturally. Talents are plowed into factories and banks and are trying to do something there from 8 pm to XNUMX am, but you can't do anything like that! You need to do one thing! There is such a choice - either we plow everything in and create nothing culturally, or we change the technological order and free some people for creativity. Or idleness in the opinion of many members of the forum here.
    In general, the article is a plus.
    1. Fox
      Fox 4 October 2012 09: 01
      +1
      and also, for self-education and education there is a gyrych, marvanna, coke ... how many creative opportunities youth have!
      1. aksakal
        aksakal 4 October 2012 10: 05
        -1
        Quote: Fox
        and also, for self-education and education there is a gyrych, marvanna, coke ... how many creative opportunities youth have!
        - Darwin's law on natural selection has not been canceled and cannot be canceled. Either you, after some time well-fed (I repeat - well-fed, implying that robots will supply you with everything you need for existence) idleness, you will come to a gerych, marvanna, coke and turn yourself off from further selection, or you start to "sculpt" something, but unable to withstand the competition with others of the same "sculptor" in your area, you will also come to gerych, marvanna, coke, only with the complexes of an unrecognized genius and with the same final result -)))).
        All of one is more pleasant than hanging out all day at the jerky and boring work, but for which they pay well. Mlyn, and it’s necessary, the more boring and boring, the more they pay. Why not the other way around?
        1. aksakal
          aksakal 4 October 2012 12: 56
          0
          Quote: aksakal
          and also, for self-education and education there is a gyrych, marvanna, coke ... how many creative opportunities youth have!
          - I add - take a closer look at the children. In them, the wise nature does not have a desire for gerych and, if left to themselves, they immediately begin to draw, disassemble some kind of tricked-out toy (presumably for cognitive purposes) or what else to DO .-)))). The culprit is the one who kills in children it. Of course, you can plow the child under the plausible pretext of helping mom with homework so that there is no time for "nonsense", but you can maintain a reasonable balance and encourage the creative urges of children, or even help them flourish as much as possible. So that:

          Quote: Fox
          gerych, marvanna, coke

          - With the new technology presupposed technological order, this will not be the fault, but purely the fault of the parents.
    2. valokordin
      valokordin 4 October 2012 11: 48
      0
      Aksakalu, I agree with you, you +, but as for our economy, it is clear to anyone, not even an economist, that focusing the economy only on the foreign market will not lead to good, only to permanent crisis. The main emphasis should be placed on the domestic market, and, as a conclusion, to improve the purchasing power of the citizens of their country. An example of this was.
      1. aksakal
        aksakal 4 October 2012 12: 45
        0
        Quote: valokordin
        The main emphasis should be placed on the domestic market, and, as a conclusion, to improve the purchasing power of the citizens of their country. An example of this was.

        - in the short term I agree with you. In the short term, it’s suitable for Russia, but do not forget that what you are proposing is a typical consumer society, according to Khazin — the highest and final stage of the old technological structure — based on the division of labor. A dead end will happen there very quickly. In developed countries, they have already rested on it - economic growth is possible only due to growth in consumption, but it is not infinite. Well, do not change the TV three months after the purchase, and the new wall - four! For the sake of continuing this growth. Both the TV and the wall are still fully functional, and they must already be thrown out. Three-year-old cars are thrown out in Japan, as the Russians in the Far East have found out, these three-year-olds serve three more times the same amount and they don’t have anything for it, for which they are called unkillable Japs. I believe that this is actually a dead end path, consuming too many resources. In fact, there is no need to consume so much brow if you switch it to creative and constructive activity instead of constantly stimulating consumption. By the way, Russia has already passed a tangible path along this path. Of course, I didn’t get to a furniture change once every six months, but I would not say that your consumption level is low. So it's closer to a dead end than you think. Here is China - yes, it is on this path to go and go. The level of consumption there is high only in Shanghai, Beijing and others, and most of them will consume a cup of rice.
        It seems that all the same, a new technological structure (shifting production onto the shoulders of robots) will have to go, there’s no getting around. And let the Chinese proletariat try to compete with the robot -))). Whatever it was - I didn’t ask for the network, plowed 24 hours a day, sick leave - what is it, never shake hands after the weekend x and so on.
  3. mongoose
    mongoose 4 October 2012 09: 09
    +1
    honestly, I think that we are living at the beginning of a new technological era, soon the technical capabilities of production will go to a new level, when huge plants will not be needed, the production of the entire range of parts of a car, for example, can be done on a dozen machines installed in a small barn cnc
  4. Sasha 19871987
    Sasha 19871987 4 October 2012 09: 27
    +1
    Yes, we live in a very interesting time, so many events are happening, the rhythm of life is increasing, cellular communications and the Internet have come into use by so many ... although for another 10-15 years we did not know what it really is .. chips are already implanting even in people ... in general, wait and see ...
  5. wax
    wax 4 October 2012 10: 59
    0
    In peace, progress cannot be stopped. About the same evolution is going on - from the cell to homo sapiens. But there must be a resource, it is the resource of the Earth that sets the limit for development, and then you need to go beyond the Earth. But here, thank God, there are nuances - they are associated with the fact that matter is inexhaustible and even the vacuum is filled with energy.
    1. wax
      wax 4 October 2012 11: 25
      +1
      I wrote this in general, and in particular it follows that Russia, having the greatest resources, has the greatest opportunities for progress, while European countries, for example, if they are not allowed to access other people's resources, will not live even half a century. That is the whole core of modern politics. In order to use the resource correctly, Russia needs competent people (specialists) and competent management of the Russian community, as well as unity.
      1. aksakal
        aksakal 4 October 2012 11: 39
        0
        Quote: Wax
        we need competent people (specialists) and competent management of the Russian community, as well as unity.
        - forgot to add "with a certain degree of cruelty" -))))). After all, in order to
        Quote: Wax
        for example, if they are not allowed to access other people's resources, they will not survive even half a century
        - you need to be patient for half a century to withstand the spectacle of starving geyropetsev and continue the policy of preventing -)))))
      2. valokordin
        valokordin 4 October 2012 11: 53
        +1
        Vax, you advocate competent specialists as a wise and kind king, there are and will be specialists in Russia, but they do not fit into the existing system of political and economic relations. Who needs these specialists who do not bring profit, not to the country, but to the capitalist - the owner of yachts, steamboats and magnificent palaces, I mean modest summer cottages
  6. baltika-18
    baltika-18 4 October 2012 12: 39
    +1
    I want to ask you this: are the laws of economics generally objective? Because the laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics exist regardless of whether there are people on earth or not. And the laws of economics are created by people and for people, they are not an objective reality. There will be no people, not there will be laws of economics. And people can be wrong, they are not gods. Maybe Adam Smith is wrong, and the whole economic direction of development is wrong?
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 4 October 2012 13: 41
      +1
      Quote: baltika-18
      And the laws of economics are created by people and for people, they are not an objective reality. There will be no people, there will be no laws of economics.

      - Baltic, not quite right. The dynamics observed in the economic activity of people is the same as in the dynamics of any other complex developing system in animate and inanimate nature. I am tongue-tied, so I will give an example.
      You kind of say (this is an exaggerated example) - living beings compete with each other, and therefore competition is not an objective reality. There will be no living beings - there will be no laws of competition.
      Now, if you have such an example here - there is an excitable environment, non-living, in physics there are examples of non-living excitable environments, just excitable. There are two pacemakers - the causative agent of waves. One will excite spiral waves, the wave from it flows along the medium in a spiral, the other - circular, they diverge in concentric circles. And here are two of these pacemakers - inanimate objects, I remind you, clash among themselves not for life, but for death for possessing all this excitable field, also inanimate, mind you. Someone survives, usually a spiral pacemaker, he’s faster.
      Do you understand what I'm talking about?
      It’s hard for me to say this, in short, economic laws - objective laws, their analogues are a network of obsessive nature, so there will be people or not people, the law will not change.
      1. aksakal
        aksakal 4 October 2012 14: 01
        +1
        Quote: aksakal
        It’s hard for me to say this, in short, economic laws - objective laws, their analogues are a network of obsessive nature, so there will be people or not people, the law will not change

        - Here's another example: the laws of economics are largely based on self-organization. But self-organization is not unique to human communities. Ruby atoms under certain external conditions (pumped by energy above a certain critical level) begin to emit light in a very consistent manner. Billions of atom mutually agreed upon! We get a laser.
        Humanity also does not self-organize without these very "certain external conditions." There were no such conditions - and the Tumba-Yumba tribes remained tribes that did not organize themselves into a state.
        Therefore, it is not necessary to attribute too much to the brow. A person is not such a size that some new laws would appear with this appearance, or that people would create laws with their appearance, their activity or as a result of their activity, which without it would not exist in nature. All these laws are in nature, and the economy obeys them in exactly the same way as any other processes in nature. Sadness -))). probably dumbfounded you with the brow's worthlessness -))). I love these situations. An elongated face, a facial expression that requires justice -))))
    2. Tektor
      Tektor 4 October 2012 13: 43
      +2
      I believe that the laws of economics are objective, but they work like the laws of statistics, i.e. their implementation requires a mass market or base. The laws of economics were in effect even in the USSR, although he tried to get rid of them. It didn’t work out, and it ruined him. It was impossible to jump over the stage - it was necessary to improve evolutionarily.
      1. aksakal
        aksakal 4 October 2012 14: 01
        0
        Tector, plus +.
  7. vladimir64ss
    vladimir64ss 4 October 2012 14: 33
    +1
    Progress and regression in one bottle. Of course available. This is a dialectic.
    Quote: baltika-18
    Are the laws of economics objective at all?

    The objectivity of the postulates was explained to us as follows: horizontal, this is a base consisting of generally accepted norms. Vertical, this is newly acquired knowledge. And depending on how this knowledge affects basic norms, the basic platform is changing.
    Quote: aksakal
    There are two pacemakers - the causative agent of waves.

    Processes do not always compete and sometimes complement each other. In an inhabited environment, this is even more difficult. "" "" "" "In any case, as long as the considerations of Adam Smith remain relevant, which means that the conclusion from them that the further development of scientific and technological progress in the previous understanding of this word is impossible while also remains in effect. "" "" "Within the processes described by him. Since the system of division of labor has changed dramatically.
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 4 October 2012 14: 53
      +1
      Quote: vladimir64ss
      which means that the conclusion from them that the further development of scientific and technological progress in the previous sense of the word is impossible, is also still valid

      +, the best proof is the complete absence of breakthroughs over the past 50 years! Only improvement is already open and created more than 50 years ago. Von Neumann with Kolmogorov and Shannon substantiated computer science - since then there is nothing new in this direction, they only improve software and hardware. Basov, Prokhorov and Upatnieks have created a laser - since then there is nothing new in this direction, only lasers are improving.
      Denisov and the Western scientist before him (last name, sorry, forgot) opened the holography - that’s not even a single step has been taken since then !!!! Nothing at all, only Boeing applied for holographic recognition of previous designs to avoid plagiarism, that's all!
      About how to figure out how people think, in general, no one even sets such a task, and even no grants, no funding, nothing at all! Japan is helpless here - it has developed applied affairs, and this is pure fundamentalism, that is, here either Russia, or Europe, or America can do something. With Russia it is clear, she has no time for this at all, but the author of the book "On intelligtnce" (probably wrote incorrectly, literally "about intelligence") forgot his surname, complained that in America, too, they did not finance in any way and did not interfere with this, therefore this author created on the basis of his research at his own expense, fortunately, the software products created by him before brought him tangible profits.
      In short, Khazin is definitely right, and Adam Smith is right.
      1. vladimir64ss
        vladimir64ss 4 October 2012 16: 58
        0
        Quote: aksakal
        the best proof is the complete absence of breakthroughs in the last 50 years!

        This is also evidenced by the themes of Nobel laureates in basic sciences. But life and technology have changed significantly. And this allows us to expand our research base, which will lead to new discoveries.
  8. baltika-18
    baltika-18 4 October 2012 16: 52
    0
    Thank you, Aksakal, Tector and others. I read it with interest, it was useful to hear different opinions. Let's see, time will tell where we will come. All plus.
  9. skeptic
    skeptic 4 October 2012 18: 39
    0
    The main reason for the world economic fever is the withdrawal from the arena of the USSR. Being the only real alternative to capitalism (we will not sort out the small shortcomings of growth - for the state, and even more so for the system 70 years old) The world of capital realizes that socialism is really an effective system for humanity, but depriving them of power over the world. Therefore, the population of the West should have prayed for the USSR and wished for long summers. only the existence of the Great State of socialism made the world of capital shell out social programs and make concessions at the first desire of its population to come up with any requirements. Having compromised the first state of socialism. the capitalists are trying to restore their status quo, to return the whole world to the state that the peoples, as they understand them, should occupy - BELOW THE PLINTH.
  10. sergey261180
    sergey261180 4 October 2012 19: 09
    0
    What a crisis ?! There is no crisis!
    http://rutube.ru/video/11c4191f42c608fd53c461ab6a7acce1/#.UG2yZEZllp4
  11. I think so
    I think so 4 October 2012 21: 18
    0
    I have been reading articles of my respected Mikhail Khazin for a long time. I got a lot of them for myself, BUT, I want to drop a fly in the ointment ... All articles by a respected author are based on attempts to find and / or adjust a certain logical theory to the processes in the economy and using this theory to explain what is happening, especially crises. A laudable pursuit, but absolutely unpromising. I’ll try to explain why. Yes, simply because economic processes are not based on physical laws that can be accurately described mathematically, but on the psychology of people involved in economic activity, their behavior, their mood, their mental condition at any given time. And this is fundamentally not amenable to mathematical description. Of the entire apparatus of mathematics, only statistical methods can be used here, and even with a large share of assumptions. What do I mean by that? And the fact that all theories of economic activity, in principle, cannot explain and predict anything real, is it possible to guess these or those events by chance.
    Now I will express a certain seditious thought that will generally exclude any sense in attempts to create a theory of human economic activity. And the thought is this - what are the attempts to create a theory that explains what is happening in the economic activity of people based on? On the observation of what is happening around! Well, there are crises, falling markets, etc. But, who and when said to the respected "economists" that everything that happens is not the "intent" of a certain limited group of people possessing endless monetary, informational and other resources? No one could tell them that, and even on the contrary, he directed and encouraged these "economists" in search of "economic laws" with all their might. Well, I foresee criticism and hysteria about the "conspiracy theory". Empty, and these terms themselves (conspiracy theory) are cultivated by the same people, in order to hide from the herd of suckers your activities aimed at simply maintaining the "status quo" when this group can do whatever it wants with the population of the planet, and this population does not even suspect how they lead him by the nose and continues to feed these guys. If we proceed from this, then all economic events occurring in the world are easily explained. For example "crisis". What is it? But this is simply the time when the described group of people takes possession of newly created assets or assets that have flown away from them. The method of creating crises is simple - a sharp cut in cash in circulation! And that's it! And then the money goes to their fraudulent structures, and the rest, whom they want to seize, do not ...
    Well, okay, and so long I swung here. I suggest everyone to reflect on what I said ...
  12. fes_laeda
    fes_laeda 19 November 2012 01: 58
    0
    Quote: I think so
    "a crisis". What is it? And it's just that this is the time when the described group of people takes possession of newly created assets or assets that have flown away from them.


    straight illustration of the fate of 90% of Citigroup assets
    http://i-business.ru/blogs/23609