More than a couple of decades have passed since the beginning of the so-called first wave of privatization, which washed state property into the raging flow of the commercial sector, directed to the right direction for itself by a limited number of individuals. The individuals of the privatization wave were saddled to the full extent, and they were saddled so that it is still visible to the naked eye how well everything worked out for them and how unsuccessfully everything went for the rest of the country's population.
Two decades have passed, but even after their passing, the urgency of the problem of privatization in our country does not disappear. And there are objective reasons for this. One of the main reasons is that the overwhelming majority of Russians realize that they were deceived in the most trivial way, creating the illusion of participating in a large transfer of state property into private (that is, “their” hands). And if many people ascertain the deception, then a fair desire arises to punish the guilty and try to make sure that the future does not repeat the situation with a clear disregard for the interests of 143 with more than millions of citizens of the Russian Federation.
Why does the privatization problem, one way or another, manifest its urgency in our country? There are a number of reasons for this.
The first reason is that ordinary citizens on television screens and on print and electronic media still see the images of those “noble businessmen” who in the 90s of the last century managed to do everything to ensure that state assets miraculously privatized through their pockets and bank accounts. Moreover, these people are seen by the ordinary citizen not at all behind bars and not even in the dock of this or that Russian court. And he sees quite the opposite - who in an armored car with “cool” numbers, whom — on the shores of Foggy Albion in his own villa, reasoning about the fate of the Russian people and the Fatherland, and whom — in circles that are to some extent related to modern Russian business and politics.
Moreover, in this case, to the raising of eyebrows from that very ordinary Russian, the fact that the listed categories of persons are actually declared amnestied even if they managed to steal as much as the stars in the sky are visible to the armed eye during the first wave of privatization. This idea fits into a thesis that reads as follows: there will be no revision of privatization - this may lead to a destabilization of the situation in the country.
Here, you see, it is very strange ... As a revision of the results of privatization, it is immediately destabilization, and as there is no revision, everything will be fine - they’ll endure, they say, they will love ... But if there is some hint of destabilization when revising the results of the first wave of privatization, so the Russians are in the face of all these potential destabilizers know. A couple - in London, with a dozen - we (some even had a presidential election in one of the recent campaigns), there are several “prominent privatizers”, some of whom even seem to be at the head of the State Company services to the Fatherland ...
Strangely, the announcement of the unacceptability of revising the results of the obviously barbaric privatization of 90-s is also because for much smaller sins the investigating authorities here can dig the ground with more enthusiasm. For example, a certain hypothetical Vasya Tsutskin, who stole a copper disc from a privatized plant, will be brought to justice without fail, despite the fact that the plant itself, from which it “tsvetmet” pulled off, was at one time stolen from the state ... In general, with regard to a citizen Tsutskin's revision is more than possible (the return of the blank to the site, dismissal from work and the establishment of a criminal case), but with respect to the owner of the plant, you understand, it is not possible ... The state punishes the petty thief, but a thief of a large one is a priori amnestied. Logics…
The second reason is connected with the fact that a certain circle of people in Russia expresses ideas about the need for the so-called second wave of privatization. As arguments that should influence the public, the following are indicated:
firstly, it is necessary to get rid of the “non-working” (non-core) state property (somewhere we have already heard it; oh, yes - Oboronservis, it seems, was following the same path) ... Supposedly, getting rid of such property should reduce the burden of pressure on the state budget, and the private shareholder will force that very real estate to work on all coil;
Secondlya new wave of privatization will have to draw attention to Russia of powerful foreign investors, as well as develop a business climate inside the country;
thirdly, privatization-2 should contribute to the emergence of millions of new jobs.
Of course, the ideas just look great. Looked great ideas and twenty years ago ... The same thoughts: everything - for the good of the country, all - in the name of the people. It is even possible to reluctantly assume that individual individuals from among those who support the second wave of privatization think so. But only for obvious masochies ... uh-uh ... optimists are all the same forces that in their time had already drawn the right privatization line for themselves. They are both hands and for the second wave, and for the third, but at least one hundred and fiftieth ... Of course, everything will once again go exclusively for good. Just forgive, for the good of whom. Is it possible for the benefit of the average Russian, who for 20 has been feeling all the charms of the total sales of state property for years and is immensely happy about how lucky he was in his time to get a privatization check or to become a witness of a pledge auction ...
The ideologists of the new privatization wave often declare: friends, well, stop already falling into your pessimistic hysteria. Enough already! This time, everything will be taken into account, there will be no shortcomings, everything will be carried out solely by law. There will be competition, the cost of services will certainly fall, the number of jobs will grow, and everyone will finally breathe a sigh of relief, saying: eh, our heads are sleeping; in vain they criticized the new privatization plans.
However, the newest история countries often suggest that privatization mechanisms, perhaps only in one case out of ten, lead to positive moments both for the state’s economy and for raising the living standards of those people (not top managers, of course) who, with or without privatized production, otherwise related. One example is the restructuring of such a company as RAO UES of Russia. In 2000, the structure of the company was implied such that the package in 48% of the shares would be in the hands of so-called minority shareholders. No sooner said than done. It would seem that the presence of independent power producers should stimulate competition in the domestic market and lead to lower prices per kilowatt-hour. However, nothing like this happened.
At the same time, the case of RAO UES of Russia is far from being the most negative. At the beginning of 90's, enterprises were privatized according to the “voucher” method, according to which each of the citizens of the state could receive his “piece”. However, even when investing in privatization checks, people most often came across the real business carousel, when companies resold from one hand to another on 10 once a year, changed the name and details of bank accounts. As a result, Ivan Ivanovich, who invested his labor “voucher”, for example, in the company “Roga-hoof” after a couple of months, learned that such a company no longer exists, but instead there is another company - “Hoof-und-horn” and therefore Ivan Ivanovich could no longer count on any dividends there by definition.
And by the middle of 90-x began to act, let's say, a special privatization scheme in the form of the above-mentioned mortgage auctions. The point was that the state took loans from banks, and itself pledged certain property (an oil company or a metallurgical plant, for example). If the term of the loan expired, and the state did not have time to pay its debts, the property passed into the ownership of the banks. According to the results of such peculiar auctions, in just two months of 1995, 12 of the most powerful state-owned companies turned out to be privatized, and private owners got practically free of charge ...
No, of course, you need to immediately abandon the scattering of ashes on your head, and set yourself up in a positive way: “this time it will not happen again,” “this time nothing will happen again,” “this time it will not happen again,” thirty again ... But now I want guarantees - guarantees that the privatization mechanisms will not lead to a series of such Oboronservis, again realizing the "non-core" property through front companies with discounts and other personal benefits.
Well, how many are possible on the same rake ...
Old rakes new privatization
- Alexei Volodin