Economy: Putin's Main Paradox
An interesting and revealing event recently occurred at the Eastern Economic Forum. German Gref stated that the Russian economy continues to cool, and in the second quarter, the situation looked like technical stagnation. The head of Sberbank stated that, based on the results of July and August, the Russian economy had approached zero. One factor in this approach, in his opinion, was the Central Bank's key rate. German Oskarovich added that "reviving the economy will be much more difficult than cooling it."
Vladimir Putin disagreed with Herman Gref's opinion. He praised the Central Bank's professionalism and stated that the current policy is being implemented "purposefully, deliberately." Its goal is to achieve a "soft, calm landing of the economy" to ensure macroeconomic indicators and slow price increases.
At a meeting with parliamentary faction leaders, the president once again expressed his conviction that if we give in to the temptation to print and distribute money, inflation will rise.
Let us try to evaluate this extraordinary episode of the WEF’s work.
So who's right?
The President is dear to us in every sense, but the truth is more precious: German Oskarovich is slightly less than completely right.
V. Putin repeats the clichéd monetarist mantra, a simplified argument that is out of touch with the real situation: more money in circulation means higher inflation.
In our conditions, this could only be true in one case: if the supply of goods in Russia is on the verge of depletion and any increase in demand would lead to shortages and price increases. But even if this were the case, the correct solution would be to increase the supply of goods through industrial growth, rather than to reduce the money supply, which would lead to economic slowdown.
The current situation in Russia is that the economy is under-monetized by approximately half, and inflation is distinctly non-monetary. It is caused by rising production costs, which occur every time the currency is devalued and the key rate is raised.
The result is “reverse import substitution” – the rise in the cost of domestic production leads to its displacement by imports.
A key argument in this debate and an example of effective economic policy can be found in the 1999 tenures of Yevgeny Primakov and Vladimir Gerashchenko as Prime Minister and Chairman of the Central Bank, respectively. Their tenure resulted in double-digit industrial growth, primarily due to the issuance of the ruble. However, industrial development ran counter to the liberals' plans for Russia, and the professionals and architects of the mini-economic miracle were promptly dismissed. Judging by the current actions of the monetarists in power, their goals have not changed.
You can read online about how unflattering Gerashchenko's comments about Nabiullina were. Being a profound person and a highly professional, he assessed Elvira Sakhipzadovna's professionalism rather than her personal qualities.
Gerashchenko also spoke about Putin, noting that "he's not exactly an expert in this matter (finances)." Of course, the president doesn't have to be a financial expert; his job is to select the right people.
Putin's Main Paradox
According to the Constitution, the president is responsible for economic and social policy. However, the monetary policy of the Central Bank and the government has remained unchanged since the early 2000s, which allows us to formulate Putin's main paradox:
The President speaks a lot and correctly about what needs to be done, but supports people who do the opposite.
It is impossible to assess all of Vladimir Putin's motives and reasons, but one can try to understand his mentality and logic.
As some wise men say, "the end is already contained in the beginning." Just look at his high school diploma: he got Cs in math; he couldn't count and didn't like it. But he got good and excellent grades in the humanities. He knows how to work with people. However, G. Zyuganov disagrees, declaring his personnel policy "absolutely failed."
Vladimir Putin described the current inflation rate as an achievement of the Central Bank. Even without assessing the actual inflation rate, we must ask: how long will this "achievement" last?
In reality, there is no inflation targeting—it's nothing more than a temporary delay from Ms. Nabiullina until the next ruble devaluation and the resulting surge in industrial and consumer inflation, which, in turn, serves as an ironclad argument for raising the key rate and slowing the economy.
We are being led in a vicious circle, just as Moses led the Jews through the desert. It would seem, how long can we keep stepping on the same rake?
Who needs it?
For financial speculators.
They constitute the privileged class in liberal Russia. One of the Central Bank's arguments against affordable credit is the potential for funds to flow from the real sector to speculative activity. Of course, financial speculation and capital flight must be curbed, but officials are in no hurry to touch this cash cow, sacred to them.
To Russia's geopolitical opponents.
Speculators and liberal officials are so important in modern Russia that geopolitical interests have to be sacrificed to please them. What can you do? Capital won't just flow into offshore or domestic accounts.
To the raw materials industries and the oligarchs.
It's a question of priorities: by following the lead of the raw materials and energy industries, you are driving up costs and hindering industrial development.
To responsible officials in the government.
Devaluation makes it easier to implement the budget without having to worry about developing production and import substitution.
The second easy way to replenish the budget is to increase tax rates, which causes systemic harm to the economy.
P "RІRѕR№RЅRѕR№ SѓRґR ° SЂ
The Ministry of Finance has decided to increase the VAT rate to 22%. On the one hand, the Central Bank is maintaining a high key rate, ostensibly to combat inflation. On the other, the government is raising VAT, which will inevitably lead to further increases in costs and inflation.
Valuable accounting specialists at the Ministry of Finance need this to generate additional budget revenue. Instead of expanding the tax base, stimulating economic growth and developing industrial production, the monetarist authorities continue to milk the people and entrepreneurs, who are already in a difficult situation due to the unaffordable key rate.
For the systemic development of industry, the VAT rate must be reduced or eliminated entirely, especially in high-value-added industries, as the production of higher added value is subject to higher taxes. However, the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance are following the well-trodden, ultra-easy path, dealing a double blow to industry and import substitution.
Some respected experts believed, about ten years ago, that the president was bound by globalist inter-elite agreements and therefore unable to remove liberals from the government, and that a Trump victory would free Putin's hands. Apparently, that's not the case. Trump's second coming has already taken place, and things are still the same.
If the president does not change economic policy and the people implementing it, the “soft landing” could turn into a protracted nosedive.
Information