Military Review

Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Victor Ivanter: “Tell me a country that would not like to have such a“ raw material curse ”like Russia’s”

30
Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Victor Ivanter: “Tell me a country that would not like to have such a“ raw material curse ”like Russia’s”The St. Petersburg Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences ended the international forum “New Technologies for the New Economy of Russia”. The main attention was drawn to breakthrough research, primarily interdisciplinary, at the interface of medicine, physics, and chemistry. At the same time, a huge interest was aroused by the speech of the Director of the Institute for National Economic Forecasting, Victor Ivanter. The readers of File-RF have the opportunity to look at the domestic economy through the eyes of a famous scientist.


A key factor in today's development is the rate of economic growth. In general, it seems that moving quickly is better than slow. On the other hand, a version arises that, perhaps, it is necessary to move slowly, but very qualitatively. From an economic point of view, the last consideration seems to be meaningless. Because the quality movement is certainly innovative; there is no innovation without investment, and no one invests in a “standing” economy. Such a scheme is true for a predominantly market type economy based on a demand system. Demand creates a need for investment, but investment requires innovation. This is the case, and not at all because someone wants innovation - they are absolutely not necessary and not interesting for normal business. But the competitive environment requires that it be cheaper and better, and this is impossible without innovation and investment.

The development of transport infrastructure in Sochi. View of the autostart at Adler – Vesele. Photo ITAR-TASS.

Now they say a lot that the main obstacles to Russia's economic growth are “bad” in the economic sense, state institutions: courts are judged incorrectly, there is a “telephone right”, competition is also violated by bribes ...

A small retreat. It is generally accepted that traffic cops should be considered the most important bribe takers. My friends and I have a very long driving experience, but for many decades I have not heard that traffic police officers directly extort money. Yes, we were stopped for violations, but we didn’t want to waste time paying fines and seduced the cops with “on-the-spot”. But that they demanded - this was not. And when I hear that a well-known international fund knows exactly the volume of Russian bribes, I involuntarily wonder: how do they calculate? Has anyone calculated the average tribute even to the same traffic cop? And another question: in 2006, we had the same institutions as now, or others? You will agree that it is definitely not better than today, however, the country's economic growth rates were under 8% per year ...

Prime Minister Medvedev recently said that we have the best Civil Code in the world. But this is neither more nor less than an economic constitution. But if the codes are good, then the judges are “bad.” And we have “spare” to remove these, and put the others?

I have the impression that such “explanations” of critics derive because of the unwillingness to do something themselves.

Meanwhile, there are clear economic reasons why Russia is now slowing down. We were moving quite effectively, but in 2009, the global crisis hit us. He came from the United States - from the fact that there they lent for the construction of housing to anyone who asks, and knowing in advance that not everyone will be able to return. But they still gave it (by the way, in the States, unlike us, with deceived real estate investors, houses were built). All this lasted for a long time and, in the end, led to a logical result. But we did nothing wrong with you, we did not give out money. How then were affected by this crisis?

First, thanks to the relatively high prices for our energy, we have accumulated very large foreign exchange reserves. This money, about 600 billion dollars, we kept in the United States. At the same time, our large corporations, enterprises and banks scored loans for 500 billion dollars. That is, we sent the money there, and they returned us back as if they were our own. The difference is that we placed our savings at two percent, and they gave us loans at eight. This margin was, apparently, a kind of payment for our "inability to manage money." Probably, we did this because of the persistent "popular" conviction: they say, "give me a Russian whatever — it will still steal, and you cannot follow." But if we first transfer funds there, and then they give them back to us, then overseas capitalists will control where this money goes. ” But they are normal people. Why should they follow when they have a deposit in their accounts? And, of course, no one asked our masters of the oligarchs whether the loans received were used effectively.

Secondly, unfortunately, the structure of the economy of our exports was unsuccessful - we sell oil, gas and metals. Now Russia produces about 520 million tons of oil, of which within the country somewhere 250 – 280 million are used - there is no shortage of fuel. What to do with the rest? Save, do not take out, keep with you? And who guarantees that in 20 years they will buy it from us, and even for a good price? Therefore, surplus is sold. When you are told about the “raw curse”, this is complete nonsense. Find me a country that would not want such a "curse."

And when they say that Russia is a raw materials appendage, it is nonsense. If you allow foreigners to conduct all geological work on their territory, you have built oil pipelines, gas pipelines, etc., and for this you only get some interest, then you are a raw materials appendage. And we have nothing like it - we do everything ourselves. Now, however, there is a certain danger, since a significant part of the equipment that our mining companies use is imported. But so far we have not become any raw materials appendage. Moreover, we are the only large modern energy independent power in the world, this is our indisputable advantage. And although we were frightened that the prices for oil and gas would fall tomorrow, they, fortunately, are not falling. In general, we survived even in the most difficult time, for example, when in December 2008 of a year a barrel of oil cost 39,5 dollars. Because, on average, production costs we have about 15 dollars per barrel, and Rosneft has about 12 dollars in general. Where do you find more production with such a level of profitability?

Construction of a new residential complex. Photo ITAR-TASS.

Is the price of oil significant? Of course, it is essential for our investment activity: if a barrel costs 40 dollars, then we don’t drill in the Arctic, and if 80 we drill. For our promising work is very important. Now oil on the world market costs 107 – 109 dollars per barrel, exports are growing, everything is fine with gas, but then what happened, why did the country reduce growth rates?

We have an economic structure that cannot suit - but not in that stupid sense that “it’s time to stop producing oil and gas, since nobody needs it, and we will all write computer programs and trade them”. The problem is that in a number of cases we ourselves have got into export dependence. For example, our metallurgy today is an export-oriented industry. But if you think that we supply high-quality metal to the world market, then you are mistaken. We sell the “primary”, semi-finished products, slabs. Thus, by the way, allowed the Americans to restructure their metallurgical industry. And now we are competing with their already modernized industry in the market ... of China. And there metal production is fantastic!

I remember how back in the Soviet Union we celebrated steel production in the record volume of 100 million tons. But now we produce half as much, and China is unimaginably more: 500 million tons. However, if you and I were developing the infrastructure more actively, building roads, then metallurgy would cease to depend on exports. After all, it only seems that the tracks are made of sand, gravel, concrete, etc. In reality, the road is a tremendous amount of metal-intensive structures. And the creation of transport infrastructure is able to provide sales of almost any volume of the Russian metallurgy.

Although here we have achievements. In the Soviet Union, eternal shortages were large-diameter pipes. We solved this problem. Gas and oil pipelines provided with their own pipes. We have every reason to make metallurgy an internally oriented industry, and in this case there will not be the current problem associated with the fall in world metal prices.

The same with coal, where difficulties are associated with declining prices for it and the fact that we have almost eliminated domestic coal generation - this is largely due to the high cost of transportation. From Kuzbass to any port - one and a half to two thousand kilometers, while Australia extracts coal in the neighborhood of the sea terminal. And water transportation is much cheaper than all other types of transportation. We are able to recreate a well-thought-out system of domestic Russian coal consumption.

That is, it turns out that today's problems with metals and coal we have created in many ways ourselves ...

In general, Russia emerged from 2008 – 2009 crisis quite well, compared to 1998. Moreover, we learned about “crisis-2008” from newspapers and speeches, while “default-98” was felt by most when the savings disappeared and prices jumped four times. It must be said that the authorities in 2008 – 2009 have acted absolutely adequately: they defended the deposits of the population and the corporate sector, thereby preserving the wages of the inhabitants of the country. True, these correct steps were explained to people as odd: “We are saving the banks”. Naturally, they all thought: “Why would bankers help out again?” Nothing of the kind, no bankers were saved. In general, it is quite difficult to drown them, they are very tenacious. In 1998, banks went bankrupt, but we didn’t see their owners as bankrupt. Anyone from the 20 floor! All alive and well!

In 1998, the government saved the banks. And in the current crisis - the investor. The population (it always behaves correctly), seeing this, instead of squandering money, carried the accumulated funds to the banks. True, we again did not support the real sector enough - there was a recession.

Launching of the head communication vessel "Yuri Ivanov" in St. Petersburg. Photo ITAR-TASS.

If you remember, 50 was allocated billions of dollars to save corporations that have large stakes in Western banks. The version was this: our securities will be taken away - and we will be left without strategic enterprises. But life is more complicated. Western banks did accept securities of strategic enterprises as a pledge, but could not and could not do anything with them: this requires a special government decree. Therefore, foreign banks began to restructure these packages, which did not cost 50, but less than five billion dollars.

In 1998 – 1999, we had a sharp decline in exports of metal, basic chemistry, cement, cellulose, and now this does not happen. Then why does a crisis arise? Intelligently, it can be called like this: they took the “investment pause”. We completed construction for the APEC summit, gas and oil pipelines in the Far East, and we are finishing in Sochi. This decline in investment quite logically slowed down investment activity in the whole country. Given that the government, which reported on the savings due to the crisis, has called for active private capital.

However, there is a simple principle: either the budget is invested, and after it the private sector is invested, or there will be a crisis. With the same freeways: if the state allocates money for their construction, then “private traders” also connect - they don’t need to agitate, they understand: there is a road - there will be transportation, not to mention that the trade and service infrastructure is actively developing around the highway ... But again the choir of skeptics comes in, that everything is stolen, that the World Cup is a nightmare.

What is the advantage of the Olympic Games in Sochi, the Universiade, the APEC summit? We cannot move deadlines. If it were not for the Olympics, we would have built 20 for years in Sochi. And here - without any options. And the football championship can not be transferred. Therefore, everything will be built on time, as expected. This is a big incentive. But we need to revive the rest of the economy. And it is activated when there is a clear and tough task.

If the current pace of development of the economy (1,8 percent) does not suit us - it means that we must fulfill everything that was promised. Do not invent anything, but just do it. We agreed that we will restore the normal appearance of our infrastructure, build roads — both roads and railways. Our mining industry is a huge solvent demand for technical re-equipment, revitalization of the sectoral and fundamental science, restructuring of mechanical engineering ... We still have a bright chance to carry out a “reverse conversion”. “Normal” is when military production is reduced and civilian production is increased by it. At one time we did not. But now we have a unique opportunity - by restoring the defense-industrial complex, to tighten the level of the whole industry. And periodically arising attempts to reduce the volume of military spending is a struggle, first of all, with the technological re-equipment of the country ...

Finally, we agreed to invest in housing. This is an amazing industry. Firstly, it attracts imports to a minimum, and secondly, very effectively makes people work. They get an apartment, and then have to pay for it from the salary. This is also a powerful anti-inflation measure, because he does not spend the money that a new settlement earns, but gives it to the state to repay the loan. In a word, there is a tremendous number of measures, decisions on which have already been taken, but their implementation proceeds sadly and slowly.

Construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline in the Leningrad Region. Photo ITAR-TASS.

From 1980 to 1988, we “persuaded” the economy to become efficient, took the most serious decisions of the Central Committee and the Council of Ministers, and she, in itself, did not get any better. And now we demand growth from her, but at the same time, since there is little income, we are going to cut costs.

There is a historical problem of husband and wife. He says: "you need to spend less," and she - "you need to earn more." But if the family has the opportunity to switch to the economy mode in order to balance, then in the economy this is completely unacceptable. If you cut expenses, incomes are reduced. You still reduce costs, incomes fall again, and so on ad infinitum. Such a paradox. Because in the economy, spending is demand. Without demand, nothing happens. They say: "there are senseless, inefficient expenses." Yes, but these must be disposed of regardless of whether the crisis is now or not. They simply should not be.

And in the economic cycle, when your income decreases, you need to increase spending - in order to increase income later. If you reduce costs, you drive yourself into a corner. Although, formally, everything looks logical: “since there’s not enough money, let's spend less”. But rightly so: if there is not enough money, let's earn more, and the only way to earn more is to spend more.

We must restore investment assets in the country, which will create another basis for economic development. Moreover, there is the problem of the minimum acceptable rate of economic growth in Russia. 2-2,5 percent per year - the rate at which we can maintain the standard of living that we have now. Imagine that you 20 years have not repaired your own apartment. She, of course, decayed. Then you finally decided and spent a significant amount on repairs. In this case, the apartment remained the same, you just restored what you need. And the state has such “physical debts” when it is necessary to maintain facilities that have not been repaired for decades. And the infrastructure in the Far East must be restored - no one expected such a devastating flood. That is, we will have to spend at least 2-2,5 percent of GDP only to keep the standard of living that we have today.

There is another fundamental problem - wages. Since Soviet times, there is a joke: “how we get paid, we work like this,” and now nothing has changed.

However, Henry Ford, a very successful entrepreneur, who, among other things, wrote many books, called one of the chapters: “The main factor in the growth of labor productivity is high wages.” This, whether we like it or not, is true. To get efficient production, you need a high salary. Only then all the technologies work. If low wages do not work, any measures and technologies are ineffective; people work differently.

Exploration of oil reserves. Photo ITAR-TASS.

Skeptics here insert: they say, we have the “wrong” people - drink, smoke, take time off, “run around the women” - they cannot be paid a lot. One might think that Ford had exclusively intellectuals working on the assembly ... In fact, everything Ford had achieved was based on a high salary. But if you establish a decent wage, a high level of organization is required. Only then there is a need for new technologies.

And naturally, it would be desirable that we not only had a demand for innovations, but that we were ready for this, and that these technologies were generated domestically. Business is international. At that moment, when you are missing something, you can buy it on the side, only the effectiveness of the solution falls.

The conclusion is simple. Reasoning that we must come to terms with low rates of economic growth is destructive for the country. It is important to nod less at the machinations of the "external enemy", and to mobilize domestic resources, and then things will go. We have all the opportunities to start a large-scale economic recovery.
Author:
Originator:
http://file-rf.ru/
30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kibalchish
    Kibalchish 18 October 2013 08: 19
    12
    "Damnation" not because there is a lot of raw materials, but because the authorities decided that since there is a lot of it, then nothing can be done. As a result, we have the mythical Skolkovo and completely destroyed industry, science and culture.
    1. Lindon
      Lindon 18 October 2013 09: 24
      +4
      I agree.
      This psychology: "The state will not become poorer" (Ivan Vasilyevich changes his profession) began with Khrushchev with his megaprojects a la "Let's catch up and overtake America."
      The Kremlin starting Brezhnev sat selling oil and was engaged in complacency.
      Until now, Russia is sitting on a pipe with space technology, unlike other oil and gas countries.
      1. kris
        kris 18 October 2013 09: 40
        +1
        Court Academician. Another theorist.
        He zealously predicted a doubling of GDP by the year 2012.
        For those interested, Google has enough of its articles.
        1. INTER
          INTER 18 October 2013 10: 36
          0
          At this historical moment in history, there are very few citizens in our country or they are not in business who could, without mercantile considerations, help the country, raise industry, agriculture, and other industries, and no matter how they talk about leadership, in particular about GDP , he does the job, but the performers are xre .... e. narrowly specialized, far from reality and from the needs of the people. My personal opinion: "A person who does not distinguish horse manure from cow manure or who has not plowed a hundred square meters of land should in no case be appointed a minister." This is not only about agriculture, but addressed to everyone. In many ways, incompetence and not knowing what to do leads us where we are going. Themselves were witnesses and repeatedly, when the minister of one ministry, for example, C \ X was appointed as the minister of industry (for example).
  2. Lech from our city
    Lech from our city 18 October 2013 08: 27
    +9
    Yes, the author of the article is right.
    Only the mention of DAM spoiled my morning mood-heartburn in me on this gentleman.
    1. MIX58
      MIX58 18 October 2013 08: 51
      +3
      Quote: Lech from our city
      Only the mention of DAM spoiled my morning mood-heartburn in me on this gentleman.

      Similarly !!! :)
  3. lewerlin53rus
    lewerlin53rus 18 October 2013 08: 32
    +9
    "The main factor in the growth of labor productivity - high wages" Henry Ford

    Here's how to drive it into the head of our employers? If I’m standing behind a machine tool or sitting in an office and not thinking about how to do my job faster and better, but how to feed my family and where to earn extra money or re-earn money, then what kind of quality and productivity can we talk about?
    1. Lapotnik
      Lapotnik 18 October 2013 10: 00
      0
      The salary?? Theories) But in fact - a slave to the power, which is the same Henry, and now all the capitalists, including ours, are clearly trying to prove (migrants, private prisons in the USA, etc., etc.).
    2. Metlik
      Metlik 18 October 2013 10: 45
      +1
      Ford was not only thinking about labor productivity. According to his logic, a worker, getting good money, will be able to buy his car. A high salary is also a stimulation of demand, which means a cure for the crisis.
    3. kartalovkolya
      kartalovkolya 18 October 2013 11: 50
      0
      In my opinion, only 9 mm PM, but with this, it will take out the brains (others will immediately understand)!
  4. treskoed
    treskoed 18 October 2013 08: 35
    +1
    What is the advantage of the Olympic Games in Sochi, the Universiade, the APEC summit? We cannot move the deadlines. If not for the Olympics, we would have been building in Sochi for another 20 years. And here - it is invariant.

    And the question price? Is this all that is needed? Like BAM, for example! How much money was spent and stolen.
    1. Lapotnik
      Lapotnik 18 October 2013 10: 43
      0
      There is such a thing as strategic objects that were not originally created for profit. BAM is just that. Like the Baikal Pulp Plant, as well as some hydroelectric power plants, and so on. etc.

      And about Sochi - I will not, let's see what happens)
  5. rugor
    rugor 18 October 2013 08: 38
    +4
    “As we are paid, so we work”


    How to say, management in state-owned corporations earns so much that Western colleagues smoke nervously in the corner, and the result - at best, does not get worse.
    1. kaktus
      kaktus 18 October 2013 09: 02
      +3
      they do not earn, but receive. If they earned, the result would probably be better laughing
  6. Stiletto
    Stiletto 18 October 2013 08: 50
    +4
    This is true, the problem is not in the resources, but in those who have grabbed them for themselves and are now quietly eating at a time when most of the country's inhabitants with national rent have absolutely nothing.
  7. Valery Neonov
    Valery Neonov 18 October 2013 08: 52
    +2
    hi Prime Minister Medvedev recently said that we have the best Civil Code in the world.- so after all, looking for someone.

    "... such" explanations "the critics deduce because of the unwillingness to do something themselves"- Well, for some reason, they do, that's just not for the good of Russia.
  8. lotar
    lotar 18 October 2013 08: 57
    +3
    The article is interesting, but in my opinion, it would be worth adding to this that our country in many industries is in the position of catching up, and this, as I think, is not correct. In my opinion, if you want to surpass your opponent, then you need something that will help go forward one or two cases (in this case, we mean a generation of equipment and technologies, in other technological structures or something), and not constantly be in the role of a follower.
  9. Goodmen
    Goodmen 18 October 2013 09: 03
    +7
    "... And when they say that Russia is a raw material appendage, this is nonsense. If you allow foreigners to carry out all geological work on your territory, you have built oil pipelines, gas pipelines, etc., and for this you get only some interest , then you are a raw material appendage. And we have nothing like that - we do everything ourselves ... "
    It seems to me that it would not hurt for us not to sell crude oil in the majority, but already finished oil products. So it is with the forest, and also for sure, with other resources. There are many more pluses.
    1. Lapotnik
      Lapotnik 18 October 2013 10: 19
      0
      Well, this "academician" is the same liberal as all similar pushing speeches. What's the difference who and what explores and builds if in the end we sell RAW MATERIALS, OWN PRODUCTION (STATE) at least! Namely, this determines the potential of the state in everything - how it will behave in a crisis, how it will provide for people, etc. etc.

      We see whether we offer bribes ourselves ... Well, if the cop is a decent person, then he might not have taken a bribe, made an offer and let go! But they take it! The whole article is sheer profanity. Words seem to be true sometimes, but if you think about what and how it is said ...

      We still have a brilliant chance to conduct a "conversion on the contrary." “Normal” is when military production is reduced and civilian production is built up due to it. We did not do this at one time. But now we have a unique opportunity - restoring the military-industrial complex, to raise the level of the entire industry.


      How shoud I understand this? nahfig us military, raw materials appendage it is not needed.

      Finally, we agreed that we will invest in housing construction. This is an amazing industry. Firstly, it minimally attracts imports, and secondly, it makes people work very efficiently. They get an apartment, and then they must pay for it from the salary.


      What does minimally attract import? I work in construction, In St. Petersburg, Turks and Finns are quite common as general contractors, I’m sure in other cities too, Sochi, the Turks were built entirely by migrant workers, Russian companies at best were picked up.

      What kind of import does pancake mean? I watched bureaucrats interview about this housing - they promised 25tr per sq meter and where is it ?? Who has heard of this?

      In short, the whole article is an attempt to vyuhat that all zaeb .., Negroes need to work, and not for the government (the power to nod) it is the same as in 2008! There is nothing to blame him, you look, in fact there is NO negativity to the authorities! All in a bunch ...

      For those who favored - you think about the context, correlate the "correct" "patriotic" phrases of the "academician" and the realities, because this is how the brain is powdered. Then they will respect him and listen ...
      Liberast, he is a liberalist.
    2. goldfinger
      goldfinger 18 October 2013 12: 49
      +3
      Neighbor is Belarusian. I agree. Here everyone rattled about Belkaliya, Kerimov, and the main dish in the appetite of your nouveau riche is our oil refinery! Mozyr and Novopolotsk refineries! Some of the best in the world. Oil refining depth - 98%. The main supplier of high-octane gasoline to Russia is Belarus! So your "industrialists" do not want to build their own, and compete, but grab money, and offshore money! The academician darkens. Lukashenko has invested $ 20 billion in agriculture in 50 years, entered the top 5 world dairy producers, and Putin poured $ 50 billion into the subtropical winter Olympics! Here is the difference in the approach to economics, whatever the respected academician with the very Russian surname Ivanter sang.
  10. MIX58
    MIX58 18 October 2013 09: 07
    +4
    For a long time ours have not pleased, and maybe for the first time I read such a qualitatively balanced analytical article written in a simple human Russian language (usually our economists speak in some kind of "alien" dialect in which only the letters are Russian) !!! Academician R.A.N Viktor Ivanter --- many thanks !!!!

    A little digression. It is generally accepted the most important bribe takers to consider traffic cops. My friends and I have a very long driving experience, but for many decades I have not heard that the traffic police directly extort money. Yes, we were stopped for violations, but we did not want to spend time on paying fines and seduced traffic cops “on the spot”. But that they demanded - this was not. And when I hear that a well-known international fund knows exactly the volume of Russian bribes, I involuntarily wonder: how do they calculate? Has anyone calculated the average offering even to the same traffic cop?

    For this 100% and I vote with both hands! It is not worth our homegrown "liberal activists" ... to scream especially strongly about the transcendental corruption in Russia! Don't give bribes! And there will be no bribe-takers! After all, in all honesty, who of us did not seduce the same traffic cop with a denyushka, for violating the PDD ???

    Article ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 18 October 2013 11: 35
      0
      Quote: MIC58
      After all, honestly, which of us did not seduce the same traffic cop by denyushka, for violating PDD ???

      For 15 years of driving, he never gave or offered.
  11. borisjdin1957
    borisjdin1957 18 October 2013 10: 01
    0
    from the Don.
    Well, there’s not much to say: good: words addressed to our: advanced: chairman of the government. And our economists who have earned the Nobel Prize by stomping the country in place. And here we need the command voice of GDP!
  12. ramsi
    ramsi 18 October 2013 10: 17
    +1
    dependence on a foreign crisis occurs only because of integration into the global economy. If the domestic, first of all, worked on its market according to the maximum list of positions (and surpluses, if needed, would be driven outside), then, of course, there would have been no crisis. But this is a planned economy. Unfortunately, the wrong paradigm was chosen: in the conditions of competition with more advanced foreign goods, it was necessary to rely not on a planned increase in the quantity - but an increase in quality to the detriment of the quantity, but with the preservation of production by any means (and, first of all, change of managerial level) . Stalin, for example, understood this very well.
    1. Lapotnik
      Lapotnik 18 October 2013 10: 37
      0
      The first part is correct, but the conclusion about the planned economy is incorrect. ANY planned economy. It all depends on how quickly and in accordance with the realities of these plans the state can review and regulate the market in accordance with the situation.

      Without regulation, the world, and we, among other things, have what we have - thieves, venality, collusion of corporations, etc.

      I agree about the quality and quantity, but in the first part I said everywhere there is a plan - a business plan, a business model, a roadmap, a budget, development programs - whatever you like, the essence is the same - if we are not able to timely and correctly adjust it at the state level ... then I think the idea is clear

      PS Having worked in the civil service at a position not the last from finance, I’ll say - ALL countries are working according to plan.
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 18 October 2013 11: 18
        0
        so does the plan today ?! Which one then?..
  13. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 18 October 2013 10: 36
    0
    Quote: It is important to nod less at the intrigues of the “external enemy”, and to mobilize internal resources, I ask myself a question: in Russia there have always been many bright goals from the economy. So why is the economy in our country lame? There are many answers. One of them: in Russia, the economy is run not by bright economists, but by stupid bureaucrats. And that means that we will almost never get out of this crisis pit. I would be glad if someone convinces me.
    1. Lapotnik
      Lapotnik 18 October 2013 10: 39
      0
      The bright-headed economist thinks about capital, markets, exchanges, etc., often forgetting about politics, power, and money as the road to power. So a competent economist will never be a competent politician. Something will have to be sacrificed.
  14. max702
    max702 18 October 2013 10: 59
    0
    The whole problem is that the country's leadership does not want to do anything in these areas, why so? There may be several reasons. From banal incompetence, inability to pursue an economic policy, to direct betrayal and destruction of one’s country in the interests of other states.
  15. Prometey
    Prometey 18 October 2013 11: 40
    0
    In the article I agree with two provisions - state demand (expenditures) stimulates the development of the economy. What the state spends, it returns in the form of taxes.
    And the growth of s / n stimulates supply and demand, and therefore commodity circulation and cash flow. Freezing s / n leads to stagnation and decline (as it is now).
  16. atos_kin
    atos_kin 18 October 2013 13: 39
    0
    Gingerbread (high salary) is good, but you still need a good whip.
  17. avd
    avd 18 October 2013 13: 46
    0
    1.
    in the Soviet Union, we noted steel smelting in a record volume of 100 million tons. But now we produce half as much, and China - unimaginably more: 500 million tons.


    Why is it "unimaginable"? Easy to imagine. 100/2 = 50. 500/50 = 10.
    10 times.
    And the population is 1 / 350 (million people) = 143. That is, per capita - almost tick to tick ...
    If the source data is true, of course ...

    2.
    There is such a historical problem of husband and wife. He says: "you need to spend less," and she - "you need to earn more." But if the family has the opportunity to switch to the economy mode in order to balance, then in the economy this is completely unacceptable. If you cut expenses, incomes are reduced.


    It is strange ... the impression is that the author of the article did not hear about optimal control.
    For an academician, director of the Institute of Economic Forecasting, this is an unheard of thing.

    Increasing income while reducing costs is very often a fairly easy task.
    Then, it turns out, he simply numbers us poor and illiterate?
    Or, together with the RAS, have all the mathematicians - economists already been dispersed?
    1. goldfinger
      goldfinger 18 October 2013 14: 43
      0
      Quote: avd
      It’s strange ... the impression is that the author of the article did not hear about optimal management. For an academician, director of the Institute of Economic Forecasting, this is an unheard of thing. Increasing income while lowering expenses is often a very easy task to solve. Then, it turns out, he’s just us poor and illiterate Or, along with the RAS, have all mathematicians - economists already been dispersed?

      Neighbor is Belarusian. I agree. Here everyone rattled about Belkaliya, Kerimov, and the main dish in the appetite of your nouveau riche is our oil refinery! Mozyr and Novopolotsk refineries! Some of the best in the world. Oil refining depth - 98%. The main supplier of high-octane gasoline to Russia is Belarus! So your "industrialists" do not want to build their own, and compete, but grab money, and offshore money! The academician darkens. Lukashenko has invested $ 20 billion in agriculture in 50 years, entered the top 5 world dairy producers, and Putin poured $ 50 billion into the subtropical winter Olympics! Here is the difference in the approach to economics, whatever the respected academician with the very Russian surname Ivanter sang.