Military Review

State and privatization. The key direction of the split of the powerful tandem

State and privatization. The key direction of the split of the powerful tandem Traditionally, privatization of state property is attempted to be substantiated by less effective public administration than private: they say, the official risks only his position, and the private owner is also a state. True, some large enterprises have long been ruled not so much by their owners as by hired managers, differing from officials, perhaps, with a lesser degree of oversight over them. But even if we assume that, in the general case, private management is more profitable, there remain many special cases when common property is more profitable.

Thus, several Russian state-owned companies are so successful that they have accumulated enough capital to buy many other companies. For example, Rosneft is now buying private TNK – BP (that is, even in such a delicate area as oil production, government officials have proved to be more efficient than market servants) - and it still has reserves for buying almost everything that the Russian government intends to sell. .

Nevertheless, the government is trying to completely ban companies with significant state participation from buying other state-owned companies. Like, what's the point of shifting from one state pocket to another? Although the meaning - increasing the effectiveness of replacing managers - is obvious, but in essence, we are not talking about efficiency here. Although October Premier 15 said, “In our plans, the sale of shares of a number of enterprises, large and significant, some of them have already been sold in recent months. Privatization should work to increase efficiency from the point of view of the company, ”but immediately added that the meaning of privatization is not to replenish the budget (many people believe that the deficit is artificial):“ This is not the main task. Meaning in values ​​and in the vector of development of the Russian economy. ” And finished off: “We must give a clear signal where we are going, what we want. We want an efficient, privately owned economy or a bureaucratic one with a dominant state presence and, accordingly, corruption. I think the answer is obvious. ” It is interesting, after all, where — in Rosneft or TNK – BP — there is more corruption, and where is there more efficiency? And to close the question, the 22 th prime minister said, “This [participation of state-controlled companies in privatization] should not be. This is not privatization, when state-controlled joint-stock companies participate in privatization, it is a substitute for the idea. But if there are formal nuances, we agreed on this, you need to prepare and put into effect the rules on eligibility criteria for participation in the relevant sales. ”

In today's economy, not all the small nuances can be quickly enough taken into account. Therefore, there is a place for private initiative at least until 2020, when the development of information technologies will allow to take into account the slightest fluctuations in consumer sentiment and calculate the full accurate optimal plan for the entire world production in less than a day (and not needed in a real economy). In such tasks, the efficiency of private management in comparison with the state can indeed be high.

But the larger the task, the less chances for a successful solution of this task by private forces without direct government intervention. Just because it is too difficult, long and risky to attract the proper forces to solve it by the market. In particular, in the modern world, stock exchanges — the main tool for attracting forces — have long depended not on the success of real businesses, but on speculative games around derivative papers, not tied to real goods and / or services, but to other papers.

Accordingly, I think: when it comes to large companies, for them the state is the natural owner. Natural in the sense that it is comparable with them in scope.

Therefore, if for some reason, under some external pressure, any state-owned companies are decided to be sold, then measures should be taken to ease this pressure. If the pressure aimed at weakening the state’s share in a serious economy (for example, the same privatization of any successful state-owned companies and / or preventing them from privatizing less-successful ones) comes from within, then the one who exerts this pressure should be crushed by all the power of the state, because it undermines the very possibility of strategic projects. And in such conditions it doesn’t matter in whose favor he undermines this opportunity. Whether he acts in accordance with his own prejudices or by instigation of someone else - in any case, this act should be regarded as anti-state.

So, if someone in the government insists on leaving the state from this or that sphere simply by virtue of ideological beliefs (as in the circumstances), then obviously it falls into the category that was recently accepted with full and indisputable reason - and not in the order of political squabbles - to call the "enemy of the people."

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:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. crazyrom
    27 October 2012 08: 16
    Well done, Onotole, I always read his articles with pleasure, let's hope that they are read and taken into account in the government.
    1. Ross
      Ross 27 October 2012 19: 42
      A wise and subtle author, but what a tongue!
  2. 916-th
    916-th 27 October 2012 08: 28
    The title of the article contains a message about the split of the tandem. The article itself refers only to Medvedev’s position. And what is Putin’s position on the privatization of large and successful state-owned companies? What is the split then?
    1. Kaa
      Kaa 27 October 2012 14: 02
      Quote: 916
      And what is Putin’s position on the privatization of large and successful state-owned companies?

      Privatization allows Western investors to participate in their work. BUT: 1) The government retains a controlling or blocking stake.
      2) Priority sectors are not subject to privatization - raw materials, defense and heavy industry, nuclear energy, etc.
      In fact, they are searching for answers to questions of the degree of participation of private capital in the life of the country, to which they found an answer in the 90s, sorry, through an interarch hole, which is still disintegrating in the post-Soviet space.
  3. taseka
    taseka 27 October 2012 08: 39
    "it obviously belongs to the category that was recently accepted with full and indisputable reason - and not as a political showdown - to call the" enemy of the people. " - Thank God, those days have passed when "enemies of the people" were shot at a million a quarter, now they are called in Russia - successful managers on the economic platform "Russia"
    1. bask
      bask 27 October 2012 08: 59
      I will say one thing. When I hear the word privatization. ((((((((((((((Hand reaches for the machine))))))))))))))) You have all GDP in the country ENOUGH ALREADY EXPERIMENTS OVER THE COUNTRY))))))))). All that is possible has already been privatized - ruin. Now it’s ripe and overripe. INITIALIZATION OF THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY !!!!!
      1. tan0472
        tan0472 27 October 2012 10: 24
        Quote: bask
        Now ripened and overripe. NATIONALIZATION OF THE WHOLE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY !!!!!

        ALL strategic sectors must be nationalized. Including for example hydroelectric power stations (with free energy). And let TPPs remain private owners.
        1. plotnikov561956
          plotnikov561956 27 October 2012 13: 51
          Quote: tan0472
          ALL strategic sectors must be nationalized. Including for example hydroelectric power station

          Restore the Unified Energy System .... Everything related to energy in the hands of the state. Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station. This is an example. ... And where are the corpses of those responsible for the accident led by Red
      2. Ustas
        Ustas 28 October 2012 09: 14
        Quote: bask
        Already privatized all that is possible-the ruin.

        It's time to collect stones! GDP do not miss it!
    2. crazyrom
      28 October 2012 19: 11
      Quote: taseka
      Thank God those times have passed when "enemies of the people" were shot at a million per quarter

      The official figure pronounced even by the Memorial organization is 670.000 people who were shot from 1923 to 1953 (for the entire time of Stalin). There are real conspirators, and innocent people, and those executioners who shot these innocents after which they were convicted and shot.

      Before shouting about "millions killed", study the issue properly, and do not repeat that controlled media from abroad have hung on your ears.
  4. arkady149
    arkady149 27 October 2012 09: 38
    The activity of the LADY is striking in its multi-vector nature, or if in Russian "he himself knows what he wants?" ... The thesis that state influence on the life of citizens should be minimal does not stand up to criticism, who should influence? Oligarchs?
    Onotole "+"
  5. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 27 October 2012 10: 02
    All this privatization is simply a global crime against the country and the people, all the rest are trifles that are not worth talking about ...
  6. Kapitanyuk
    Kapitanyuk 27 October 2012 11: 07
    Did the Zyuganov dinosaurs connect to the Internet? Do not touch my cozy TopVar!
  7. Goldy
    Goldy 27 October 2012 12: 08
    they will sell, but not all shares, but only a part. The state will also own shares, simply, slightly reduces its share in the company!
  8. Megatron
    Megatron 27 October 2012 14: 58
    now they are called in Russia - successful managers on the economic platform "Russia"

    Tricky inventive thieves?

    Any non-mining companies by definition, not a percent should belong to the private and moreover foreign (!!!) capital.

    Apart from ordinary people - minority shareholders and hard workers of the same enterprise.
  9. vezunchik
    vezunchik 27 October 2012 16: 32
    If the state leader ruined production - he must answer for it, moreover with his property. But instead, they urge everyone to give them into private hands, they say, the owner will fix everything! 20 years - enough time to understand clearly - the owner takes care of his wallet. But only! And through third parties, control over industry passes to another state, often hostile to Russia!
    After the Georgian conflict, it became clear that DAM is not a leader! But someone needs it!
  10. AleksUkr
    AleksUkr 27 October 2012 18: 49
    “Privatization was a holy war against the communists. But in the war, they don’t count either money or sacrifice. ” Chubais twists out and says a lot of smart words.
    Chubais says: “We were not engaged in fundraising, but in the destruction of communism.” And on my mind was: "We were engaged in the destruction of Russia."
    This man is still in power. He is still destroying!
    Privatization in Russia until 97 was not an economic process at all. It solved a completely different scale of the problem, which few understood then, and even more so in the West. She solved the main task - to stop communism. We have solved this problem, solved it completely.
    “The main thing that failed us is the enormous gap between the rhetoric of the reformers and their real actions ... And, it seems to me, the Russian leadership has surpassed the most fantastic ideas of Marxists about capitalism: they considered that the state’s business was to serve a narrow circle of capitalists, pumping them into their pockets as much money as possible and as soon as possible. This is not shock therapy. This is a malicious, premeditated, well-thought-out action, aimed at the large-scale redistribution of wealth in the interests of a narrow circle of people. "
    Everything has been clear about Chubais for a long time, why repeat it as a mantra? Hasn't been working for a long time.