Military Review

Political and economic education

60
Einstein forever, or what economists hide from us




Article No. 2

At one time I had to do economics for experimental purposes. I even put in place a certain economic model - for a limited circle of people within historical role play. The game itself did not go very well, but the economy worked in such a way that even after its completion, game coupons were bought and sold for another day for real money. The conclusions that eventually came out stunned not only me, but all the participants and masters.

I will express, let's say, metaphorically:

1. The economy should make me (lazy cattle) work for society.
2. Without enough work, no economy can move a society. This work must be meaningful and in demand.

Einstein and the economy

Why do I connect Einstein and economics? The economy simply works on leverage, and levers in turn is a physical concept.

Understanding that the formulas and references to Einstein's theory plunge even the most desperate “bookworm” into dismay, I will give only one conclusion from his “digital signatures”.

Everything that happens always happens in relation to something.

For example, Uncle Peter bought a car, and he became better off Uncle Vasya. Uncle Vasya did not purchase a car, but he is an official, and he is being transported by state machine. Who turned out to be cooler? Conclusion: the one and the other are steep in relation to the one who is not an official or happy owner of a car.

Capitalist economy and what it tastes

To describe fully the economy of capitalism is difficult, if not impossible. Since the model itself is based on private contribution to the general economy, and private contribution is a very broad concept (from theft to donation). Therefore, I will touch only those aspects that can be calculated within the framework of this article. However, I will note: both capitalism and socialism are advanced economic systems with respect to, for example, the primitive-communal system.

So, remember about Uncle Vasya and uncle Sing. Imagine that Uncle Peter bought “cool” tires on his car. Uncle Vasya can not buy these in his car, because he is in a state car and he will not be allowed by his boss. Here equality also disappears. Uncle Peter triumphantly with the realization of victory passes Uncle Vasya and sarcastically hums. Uncle Vasya's wife adds despondency to this picture by means of a word saw. This is the engine for a consumer society, which is characteristic of a capitalist society. Insulted uncle Vasya with a sense of justice immediately prohibits such tires by law! And Uncle Peter is forced to look for another way to stand out.

Political and economic education


All this can continue to develop in a spiral, and then Peter, then Vasya can compete in the level of consumption to ...

As long as the limits of their capabilities permit. And the borders are expressed by the level of earnings and power levers. For example, Uncle Peter cannot afford to buy tires that stand like a skyscraper, and Uncle Vasya cannot introduce the death penalty for Uncle Petit who violated the invented law on tires. In addition, for the purchase or for the establishment of the law requires a part of society that supports opponents with money or voice. In the modern world, we observe this: production needs consumption, consumption requires production. Both production and consumption, in turn, require public support. The formation and level of development of the social economic system depends on the balance of these components.

Thanks to this race, only those products are consumed, which help to stand out against the general background, and there are practically no commodity accumulations. It seems to be not bad - at first glance, because working time is spent on producing only the best samples of goods. But this is only at first glance.

Consumer society is doomed to the race for market conditions and as a result leads to the sad result: the financial and economic crisis.



Disadvantages:

1. The system becomes unstable and often falls into a crisis. And the crisis without savings, you know, beats much stronger. The higher the development, the more often and deeper the crisis. As described by Marx.
2. Society becomes fragmented, selfish and practically incapable of resistance. There is no need to go far for examples. World War II, when Hitler easily destroyed the greatest united army of Europe and received a rebuff in the person of the USSR, and then Vietnam, Korea, Cuba and so on. For which they fear and hate Russians - for the fact that our consumer society has always been rooting with difficulty.
3. Inflation permeating the whole society.

They can argue with me, they say, there was a total deficit in the USSR. I agree. However, capitalism is also based on scarcity. The formula “demand creates supply” already implies a deficit. In addition, a shortage of goods leads to inflation, a budget deficit and a shortage of jobs - to a crisis of power. A person in general is in itself a deficit, because he is constantly trying to create something that will allow him to spit at the ceiling, and money will fall from the sky. In the USSR, at least, everything was more honest. Lack - this is a crisis of underproduction, that is, that they have worked out, then we eat.

Coming back to our Einstein ...



I would compare the capitalist system with a conventional internal combustion engine. Beautiful, powerful, but that works as long as there is fuel, or until the mechanism is strong enough.

The socialist system works exactly the opposite. It requires not the best products, but the right ones. Accumulation becomes a necessity, and each member of society is invested in the development of the whole society, and not just himself. Yes, you have to work all your life, but even a small constant contribution increases the reliability of the system as a whole. Instead of consumption, a super idea is proposed. The forces gluing society are so high that no external forces can destroy even, for example, small Cuba. We have to fight with the help of an advertisement for a “better world”. As they did with our country, fooling and imposing other people's values. However, nothing new has been invented in history - everything once was already, and it is quite clear when the pope apologizes to Marx, and Capital becomes the world bestseller - eclipsing even the bible in terms of sales. And according to Marx, at first wild capitalism, then moderate, then developed, and eventually socialism (in Germany there was national socialism).



I would compare socialism with an ionic engine, which each time slightly increases the speed of a ship called "Economy" ...
Author:
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. optimist
    optimist 10 February 2014 08: 02
    +8
    The obvious truth, but not for everyone ....
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 10 February 2014 08: 10
      +5
      Oh in vain there’s a photo of our professor in an article, they’ll check it today laughing
      And the second picture-Bought the rights? buy a car does not reflect our reality. We move on wassat
      1. Very old
        Very old 10 February 2014 09: 38
        +8
        Alexander Romanov and all forum users who have 15 free minutes:
        Website ONE EVER.RU - from 17.о1 2014.
        Evgeny Primakov. The threat of neoliberalism to the development of the Russian economy.

        The last "brontosaurus" with a sober look, a real economist, pragmatist and just a sage.
        Maybe that's why it did not come to the court of the Yeltsinists
        1. Gardamir
          Gardamir 10 February 2014 10: 25
          +3
          But Messrs. Putinists are not in a hurry to invite him.
          1. VAF
            VAF 10 February 2014 11: 40
            +1
            Quote: Gardamir
            But gentlemen Putinists


            So because it is ONE and the same .. not even .. "camouflage" wassat
          2. mirag2
            mirag2 10 February 2014 12: 52
            0
            But the debts are really outdated, but the essence is the same:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgtg4vRyqM4
        2. mirag2
          mirag2 10 February 2014 12: 48
          0
          Here is the video of Primakov
        3. S_mirnov
          S_mirnov 10 February 2014 13: 12
          +1
          Quote: Very old
          Evgeny Primakov. The threat of neoliberalism to the development of the Russian economy.

          The last "brontosaurus" with a sober look, a real economist, pragmatist and just a sage.
          Maybe that's why it did not come to the court of the Yeltsinists


          In my opinion, there is much more sense in A.Parshev's book "Why Russia is not America", I will say frankly, I have not seen a more sensible book on economics!
          http://www.infoseller.ru/other/russia-ne-amerika.htm

          And all theorists, professors of economics must be driven up!
          And if not laziness, give a valid link to the site with material about Primakov.
  2. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 10 February 2014 08: 05
    +14
    Capitalism is based on the most base characteristics of man, Pontus is what stands above others, to have what is not accessible to the majority, to have what is not available even to the minority. To have, to have and to have again. I don’t give a damn about how to achieve an advantage, I don’t give a damn about how hard it is for some or even a lot of people. Moreover, the very rich almost do not work, they are essentially just overseers, and the majority of the poor work honestly, but they are paid a minuscule. Is it possible to compare, for example, the work of very wealthy tattoos, girls, singers, and labor, for example, a miner or metallurgist, who can name at least one wealthy miner? Modern propaganda says everyone who lives poorly. they don’t want to work, they are not worthy of sympathy, better yet they should be excluded from life, what does it look like?
    In addition, those who create wealth, who lose real health, were deprived of free medicine, pensions such that they can only survive modestly. To whom as I want in Socialism, only normal, without a party, without slogans, normal planned, fair socialism.
    1. Normal
      Normal 10 February 2014 09: 34
      +6
      Quote: vladsolo56
      Capitalism is based on the most base characteristics of man, Pontus is what stands above others, to have what is not accessible to the majority, to have what is not available even to the minority. To have, to have and to have again. Spit on how to achieve benefits ...

      That's right, namesake. And the most "effective" way to make money, as you know, is deception and theft (minimum investment - maximum profit). Only here the scope is important, the more you steal, the less you will serve (if you serve at all). It is on this principle that our domestic oligarchic "friendly capitalism" is developing.
      And for those who have not adapted to this state of affairs, they will introduce consumption standards, paid medicine and education, raise taxes and take away pension savings.
      1. S_mirnov
        S_mirnov 10 February 2014 13: 18
        +3
        Quote: Normal
        Only here the scope is important, the more you steal, the less you will serve (if you serve at all). It is on this principle that our domestic oligarchic "friendly capitalism" is developing.

        Profit - at all costs! here is the slogan of capitalism. If your profit is less, then you will be eaten by competitors who do not disdain fraud and crime.
        But we do not have capitalism, capitalism is when the money earned is turned into means of production (for example, a plant). On the contrary, everything is squeezed out of the factory by us, then machines for metal, land for rent, and the proceeds are sent abroad! This is Colonialism. We are building it!
        Our rulers even invented a clever word - "deindustrialization" means! Reducing excess factories! fool
  3. makarov
    makarov 10 February 2014 08: 05
    +2
    "The consumer society is doomed to a race for the conjuncture and ultimately leads to a sad outcome: a financial and economic crisis."

    And in this race for the conjuncture, quite often and without thinking, they throw a tight noose around their necks called "consumer credit" around their necks. And by no means always, in order to stand out against the general background, and there are practically no commodity accumulations, but because life (or rather, the struggle with death) forces, which is what the bloodsuckers bankers use.
    1. dddym
      10 February 2014 10: 48
      +8
      The social science teacher asked the kids to prepare business plans.
      Well, what is the topic of entrepreneurship, let them re-create it on the topic of intra-school business. A school is a model of the World, of the entire world economy. And fifth graders took up the homework more zealously than ever. And here is a lesson, presentation.
      Not by age, the bulky excellent student laid out in more detail how she would arrange the food factory. The brisk red-haired boy outlined the fantastic prospects of transforming the school transport system: here there are elevators, escalators, and rickshaws. A dull, neat little guy, not at all like a crazy IT guy, made a cool report on the automation, access control, accounting and control system based on the school computer network. A lively little fun told about the production of shoes for all teachers, schoolchildren and even for sale for export.
      And now, a thin modest girl with an open face and kind eyes comes to the board.
      All of you, she says to classmates, began your business plans with the words "I will take a loan from the bank." So, I open a bank.
      A restrained hum of admiration and envy swept through the ranks: and how did they not guess themselves?
      I have such conditions, the girl continues, everyone can take any amount at 20% per annum.
      How any? And a million is possible, a typical Vovochka, a bully and a second year old dozed up at the back desk, to a joke, raised his head.
      At least a billion. At least a hundred billion. But note - at the end of the year this money will need to be paid with interest. Who does not give away pick up property.
      Cho, take the whole business? indignant, alley with cheeks, a thick honors pupil.
      Of course not! I’ll only take the missing part, no more.
      Normal conditions. Even the excellent IT specialist carefully balanced, raising his eyes from the calculator, I agree.
      Everyone nodded behind him, everyone liked this kind and generous bank.
      Well, the quiet “banker” continued, at the beginning of the year I will give out a mountain of money. But, no matter how much I give out, 100% of the money covers 100% of the school business. And at the end of the year I will demand to return 120% of the issued money. Mountain and plus another fifth of the mountain. And you have only a mountain in your hands, 20%, which I demand from above, does not exist in nature. So, according to the results of the year, I will take 20% of the school.
      For a year, someone will be able to collect 120% of the money, and someone and 400%. But this means that the other does not have budgets and half of what is needed to repay the debt. But it is not important. It is important that in any case, as soon as you agreed to take a loan, you gave me 20% of the school.
      Next year is another 20%. And so on. Well, by the tenth grade I will be the sole owner of the school. Today you dream of prosperity, business, success, development. By the tenth grade, you will become my slaves and I will decide who lives and who dies of hunger.
      The class is quiet. The teacher clapped her eyes in confusion. The mobile phone vibrated incredibly loudly in someone's bag.
      Nafig such a bank, the second year-round Vovochka came to life first, we can do without a bank.
      Right! the fun from the shoe business was kindled by hope, we can do without banks and money, we will exchange our goods and services for each other with barter.
      And how do you pay for ice cream, the “banker” was genuinely surprised, will you break off the heel from the boot and give it back? And what will you pay with employees? Sneakers? So they will have no time to work - they will spend days looking for that baker who needs sneakers to buy a muffin with jam. Look, ask Dashka, the “banker” nodded to the excellent student of catering, she agrees to accept payment with sneakers.
      And we will write receipts to each other! found an IT specialist.
    2. dddym
      10 February 2014 10: 48
      +2
      A good idea, according to the “banker,” and in three days everyone will have a close-up foot of notes: “I gave Kolya a chair”, “Vasya rolled me on an escalator”, “took Ani’s sneakers” ... So what? How then to deal with all this?
      The class fell silent again. The pale teacher nervously twisted the bracelet around her wrist, looking absently at either the dull class or the calm and sweet speaker with kind eyes.
      This, suddenly, Vovochka rose, banging a chair, Ivanov, but will the school belong to you?
      Of course, the girl shrugged. This is elementary.
      Then this ... Little Vova sniffled, fingered characteristic calluses on the knuckles of his fist and tried to find the words, Ivanova, take me to work. If someone will not give his own for debts - I will help. Huh? But I don’t need much. Give me the computer class (IT guy twitched, but said nothing), I’ll make a play area there.
      Well, the "banker" agreed right away, you will be a law enforcement agency.
      No, growled Vovochka, let's rename it ... Let it be "Special Forces"!
      The Banker nodded once more and turned to a not-so-funny little fun:
      Anya, why do you have to do the shoe business, which you still lose? You want to gain, not lose, right? So, I will give you 10% of the school.
      What should I do? Anya asked cautiously, feeling another catch.
      You see, I don’t really want to work. Therefore, you will work for me. All this fuss to consider money, to give out ... Suddenly, in the middle of the year, someone wants to take another loan? So I will give you the money at 20% per annum. And you will distribute them under 22%. Your share is 10% of mine, everything is fair.
      And maybe I will not give out under 22%, but under ... Under how much I want? amused the little merry.
      Of course. But do not think that your school will become. So, you will give money at 33%, and in three years the school will be like yours. However, you took money from me at 20%, which, as you remember, does not exist in nature. And the school will still be mine in five years. And I will give you your 10%, and not you will receive them yourself. Do you understand? I am the mistress.
      Nafig such a mistress, an excellent student gurgled through her full cheeks and immediately received a powerful crack from Vovochka.
      MaryPalna, the “banker” turned to the teacher peacefully greening in the semi-conscious state, and you should not be upset. I will give you a big salary. You only teach everyone that it should be so, that it cannot be otherwise. Tell the children that if you work hard and well, you can succeed and become rich. You see, the more they work, the faster I will grow rich. And the better you powder the brains of the students, the more I will pay you. Clear?
      A spark of consciousness and hope flashed in the teacher’s eyes, she often nodded finely, faithfully looking at the fifth grader.
      A rescue bell struck. (C)
      1. I do not care
        I do not care 11 February 2014 13: 49
        0
        dddym hi
        thank you, the story is just a bomb
        1. dddym
          11 February 2014 15: 26
          0
          not at all he's already with a beard to be honest wink
  4. horoh
    horoh 10 February 2014 08: 15
    +12
    We need to return the socialist system, and not to build a dermocracy led by liberals !!!
    1. AVV
      AVV 10 February 2014 10: 47
      -3
      Quote: horoh
      We need to return the socialist system, and not to build a dermocracy led by liberals !!!

      We need capitalism with a socialist face !!! Like Sweden, Switzerland for example !!!
      1. dddym
        10 February 2014 10: 55
        +3
        There is no point - this is a myth about a socialist face. They encourage the unemployed through benefits and payments for the fact that he does not work. This means one part of the country works the rest of the ceiling spits. This is not a socialist person. And the development of society does not occur, as they were in the Third World, they remain and there is no social consciousness there. There is only a picture - sorry, but these are not great countries and will never be such. Only socialism, even with private property, as in China!
        1. Bene valete
          Bene valete 10 February 2014 12: 22
          +1
          How does private property (real, not Cossack in the garage) fit in and Socialism?
          Alas, this does not happen ...!)))
          Tell your grandmothers about Chinese "Socialism" at Zyuganov's rallies.
          For one "New" Chinese ten "old" Chinese slaves without passports, pensions and social workers plow in the cities of socks or down jackets ... !!!
          1. dddym
            10 February 2014 15: 45
            +1
            maybe you aren’t up to date - China was the most backward country before World War II. For example, in order to buy a TV, they would be thrown off by the whole village - should I talk about the number of people living in such a village? And what is happening in China - you never dreamed of ... Now there is no one starving, no homeless people, no street children. Yes, of course, each system has its own shortcomings, well, the people, so that these shortcomings would be overcome. But really the Cossack then this is the same European fiat. With the same characteristics and reliability. You do not compare now - after the USSR, in general, everything that was exported ceased to be competitive!
    2. Tektor
      Tektor 10 February 2014 14: 32
      +1
      We need to return the socialist system, and not to build a dermocracy led by liberals!
      Socialism had a serious flaw, which led the system to collapse. This is the opposition of the entrepreneur to the workers (soldiers, peasants). In fact, both entrepreneurs, and workers, and intelligence in the aggregate represent the productive forces. And for overall success, each of these class layers is necessary, because performs SPECIFIC FUNCTION... The functions of the workers (peasants and soldiers), I hope, are clear - the manufacturer of the goods and labor safety (protection against robbery). In order for a product to be produced, it must first be invented and a technological production route developed. This is the prerogative of the intelligentsia. Well, the function of an entrepreneur is to observe the economic feasibility of production, i.e. predict changes in demand for certain goods in the near future, on the basis of which either increase production or reduce it. This is what they did not learn to do under socialism: the plan was "from the achieved and beyond the plan"; what for??? Why this particular product and not another? No criteria have been worked out, although it was possible ...
      1. dddym
        10 February 2014 16: 03
        +1
        did not understand - what is this assumption? Entrepreneurs were in the USSR, but they were called cooperators. And private ownership of the means of production was denied - that’s completely different ... Nobody opposed the entrepreneur to anyone, the class struggle is different - it really was, but it’s normal - now the bourgeois class is flourishing and crushing the class of workers and peasants ... And production was then on the level - the lag was only in the consumer goods sector and that’s it! and that, due to the arms race that the United States imposed ... Regarding the plan and the superplan, this is called social competition, and regarding competition it is much safer and more effective, if you want, I’ll write the next article about the plan and the superplan ...
        1. Tektor
          Tektor 10 February 2014 16: 54
          0
          It is necessary to subdivide the "bourgeois class": to separate entrepreneurs, industrialists from bankers, aristocrats and other parasites (bandits and other cheats). The church has a separate function, since it plays a cultural and moral role in society. The grandiose forgery of Marx, which was immediately supported by all the parasites in that he opposed one part of the productive forces to the other. It's the same as saying that a diesel engine's radiator does nothing, but only loses a huge part of the energy that the rest of the parts are so hard to use: the radiator is superfluous and must be removed. What will happen to the diesel? It will work a little and fail. Only business: socialism is an analogue of a diesel engine with a faulty radiator.
          1. dddym
            10 February 2014 17: 28
            0
            As I understand it, the parasites — the workers and peasants — did they, as a class, fight the bourgeois? During mass exploitation, Marx worked precisely with the bourgeois producers of the working class, and precisely because of this his ideas were raised as a banner. Now we do not have classes but we have a bourgeois. We were declassed - it was lumpenized! Turned into the essence of the third grade, we stopped respecting ourselves, stopped respecting our neighbor, stopped helping those in need and simply did something not for money, but simply from the heart ... Marx was not deceived by any forgeries!
            1. Tektor
              Tektor 10 February 2014 17: 35
              0
              I, like, wrote in Russian: I consider parasites to be aristocrats, bankers, and other play-offers.
              1. dddym
                10 February 2014 17: 40
                0
                My closure will happen now - you write more precisely then
                Marx's grandiose forgery, which was immediately supported by all the parasites in that he opposed one part of the productive forces - the other

                The bourgeois cannot exist separately from the bankers of aristocrats and play-makers - this is an integral part of the bourgeois because for the most part this is the bourgeois!
                1. Tektor
                  Tektor 10 February 2014 18: 01
                  0
                  "The bourgeois cannot exist apart from the bankers, aristocrats and life-burners" - is that a dogma? In China, for example, they can ...
                  1. dddym
                    10 February 2014 18: 46
                    0
                    I'm sorry - what do you mean when you say the bourgeois ??? Since nowhere in any of the dictionaries are there separate aristocrats, bankers, burners of life, and even some special bourgeois.
                    Bourgeois - 1. Representative of the bourgeois class.
                    2. A resident of the city who was engaged in trade, craft, etc. (in Western Europe during the era of feudalism).

                    The meaning of the word Bourgeois according to Ozhegov:
                    Bourgeois - A man belonging to the bourgeoisie

                    Bourgeois (French bourgeois), a city dweller in Western Europe in the Middle Ages, a burgher (see Burgess); in capitalist society - a representative of the bourgeois class, and also (often) - "urban man in the street", "bourgeoisie" (representative of the petty bourgeoisie).
                    1. Tektor
                      Tektor 10 February 2014 22: 23
                      0
                      I mean industrialists like Savva Morozov. They perform an extremely important function, like a radiator in a diesel engine. Without them - krants. This function, planning, could not be made adequate. According to Wasserman, quality planning will be possible with the development of supercomputers starting in 2018. And then it will be possible to build quality socialism. And before that - one parody.
                      In addition to the function of planning and appropriating surplus value, industrialists are constantly thinking about improving the consumer properties of a product (quality) and reducing costs. The bottom line is maximizing profits. But in socialism - only minimizing costs. Well, by the way.
                      1. dddym
                        11 February 2014 00: 07
                        0
                        actually, Wasserman is already trying to implement the plan today. Savva Morozov is unique, there are only a few of them in the bourgeois environment, and today it is not even known whether there are any, capital is not looking for quality improvements now - you can follow this qualitative "growth" yourself before, for example, a guarantee for televisions was given 20 years - now 2 years maximum - where is the improvement quality? Capitalists are constantly thinking about cutting costs - where does it come from? Cutting costs regardless of quality - here's your constant thoughts about us. In the words of Filatov: "and the compote does not fit into your mouth - just a thought, but what about the people?" In socialism, minimizing costs? I can doubt - simply because, for example, the "victory" car is still in good demand?
                      2. Tektor
                        Tektor 11 February 2014 11: 10
                        0
                        Let's go back to the origins. Why does an industrialist appropriate surplus value? Yes, because he has it.!. This means a simple fact: the industrialist adequately copes with his functions, which he has TWO. This is the organization of production and planning. Organization of production means exactly two functions: minimizing costs and improving the consumer qualities of a product (to increase demand and win the competition). Planning refers to tracking the dynamics of demand and the economic situation (recession, growth, stagnation). Surplus value will appear only in case of adequate planning, while improving the quality of the goods and regarding this improvement cost reduction. Try to write an algorithm that would solve such a problem ...
                        In the Stalinist USSR, there were incentives to improve consumer qualities: artel production competed for the market, plus there was a threat of reprisals for embezzlement at state-owned enterprises. Under Khrushchev, the artels were destroyed and the threat of reprisals was reduced, which immediately affected the competitive abilities of domestic goods. Exactly one generation later, when leadership positions were replaced by those who were selected in the Stalinist era, those who were selected in Khrushchevsky experienced a complete economic failure of the existing model of socialism. And the fish rotted from the head ...
                      3. dddym
                        11 February 2014 15: 50
                        0
                        with the second part, I almost completely agree - Khrushchev destroyed what Stalin created. And broke a lot of firewood. However, even he could not ruin what was laid before him. Exports from the USSR were highly competitive products. Including space orientation and military affairs. Instrument-making and electronic products (yes, electronics was very competitive and not even in the Warsaw Pact countries, for example, measuring devices) of machine tools.
                        However, this does not mean that socialism is unstable - just the principle itself had to be changed, philistinism raised its head, and it also made a coup in 91. It was necessary to turn to the experience of Lenin - the NEP for a while and again return to the rails of socialism, then there would be no tragedy.
                        Now about the first part - the industrialist has no surplus value - because this is the surplus value that was added to the costs. Now about a good owner: maybe there are good industrialists, I will not argue for something else, because if in modern conditions at the rate of 20% the enterprise still exists, this is the merit of effective managers. However, let's take a look at today's managers: Oleg Deripaska, the owner of probably the largest industrial sector park, is a very ambiguous leader, for example, having acquired KRAZ and having the production facilities of the largest production complex in the world KATEK, which the whole country built, he did not just fail to take advantage of this as a gift, fate also destroyed profitability, practically did not modernize any of its enterprises, and made a huge reduction in jobs. For example, at KRAZ 14000 people worked before him - now 700 huge territories are in such a state that it is time to play stalker, A URAL POT? The industrialist almost ruined the whole city, so that rescuers had to be sent so that the tragedy did not happen. So I do not really believe in the fluffiness and whiteness of today's industrialists. Regarding the algorithm - in the USSR there was a whole science of AUP - the automated control systems for it worked, it was algorithms that were very effective.
                      4. Tektor
                        Tektor 11 February 2014 23: 14
                        0
                        Regarding the current industrialists - I agree. They are not trained in anything and know little. They need a training club and exchange of experience. wassat
  • kavkaz8888
    kavkaz8888 10 February 2014 08: 19
    +2
    "... I would compare socialism to an ion engine, which each time slightly increases the speed of the ship called" Economy "..."

    Perhaps socialism means a planned economy?
    1. dddym
      10 February 2014 09: 50
      +2
      as one of the components
    2. dddym
      10 February 2014 10: 04
      0
      in general, for example, social competition does not fit purely into a planned economy as such, but it is a socialist type of economy.
    3. dddym
      10 February 2014 10: 19
      +3
      does not fit into the planned economy and the fact that there is a large amount of free time that allows an ordinary person to self-develop and get achievements not only related to his labor activity, for example, clubs, clubs, etc. In the USSR, most children went somewhere. Whether dancing or some kind of macrame. Now most children are sitting at home in social networks or playing toys.
    4. mirag2
      mirag2 10 February 2014 16: 31
      +1
      What is a planned economy?
      The economy is one, but
      Socialism (social order) means - "the implementation of the principles of social justice, freedom and equality"
      Capitalism is a socio-economic formation based on private ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of wage labor by capital, with universal "legal equality".
  • polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 10 February 2014 08: 49
    +3
    Yeah! Capitalism (with its civilized model) does not work for us. Since the eighties of the last century: first the nursing home was moved to the Kremlin wall, then the Marked Bear (a faithful Leninist!) Simply surrendered the USSR with all its achievements and shortcomings, and party comrades stood side by side and were silent at best. In general, this nasty part of our history will still be appreciated. I remember how my children at school were forced to learn the names of new politicians - Yeltsin, Chubais, Burgulis, Gaidar-Kol, they were each an aspen! what we are "under construction" is not capitalism and the exact definition of it will still be given by descendants.
  • demotivator
    demotivator 10 February 2014 08: 57
    +4
    Why do I connect Einstein and economics? The economy simply works on leverage, and levers in turn is a physical concept.

    You can, of course, connect Einstein and the economy, but I would not have guessed so brazenly and in such a primitive scheme - (lever - physics - Einstein). Why not Landau, or Ginzburg? They didn’t come out with a break, or do their discoveries in physics have nothing to do with economics? The author, in principle, took up the thankless job of writing about economics. A couple of years ago, a letter appeared on the Internet from a graduate student of the St. Petersburg University of Economics and Finance, in which she openly wrote:
    “5 years at your university is the most mediocre pastime you can have. Well, even though I started working after the 1st year, otherwise I would have completely gone dumb.
    Of the dozens of disciplines that we had, only English, physical education, and probability theory came in handy. From teachers - 1-2 people really taught something.
    In addition to the 4 best friends, these years have given me absolutely nothing. After 1 year of living in China, having changed a dozen works, I learned a hundred times more and saw what the economy really is.
    If you think that it is described by the intersection of IS-LM curves, then I can say that you are wrong. Put a deuce. Diploma in the trash, those who have red - even more so.
    The university is your sucks, it’s better to send a child as a janitor right away, than to pay 5 thousand for a year for 200 years. Than to continue to teach children like this, it’s better to close yourself altogether and arrange a museum in the building, a historical object after all, the former building of the Assigned Bank of Russia.
    Sincerely, Catherine Davydova. "

    It really is. The fact is that an economist is a seductive word for those who do not know that an economist is the master. And to become an economist, without having under his responsibility a specific economy, not answering for it with personal fate, is impossible. It’s the same as becoming the best football player by watching the game of football teams on TV. Having received an “economic” education, you can become Karl Marx, but not an economist.
    The genius of industrial production Henry Ford wrote about graduates of prestigious economic schools:
    “I never hire a purebred specialist. If I wanted to kill my competitors by dishonest means, I would provide them with hordes of specialists. Having received a lot of good advice, my competitors could not get to work. ”
    The genius of stock market speculation George Soros tried to get an economic education and even entered the London School of Economics, but if he suffered in it for two years, it was only because he became interested in philosophy. Meanwhile, the future Nobel laureate John Mead gave him lectures on economics, but Soros later delicately said about his lectures that “he did not learn much from this course.”
    1. dddym
      10 February 2014 10: 09
      0
      Einstein is mentioned in deep connection - for example, the relativity of processes, there are still connections there and they are not quite superficial. Within the framework of this article, it is not possible to describe everything that follows from such a link, however, it is quite there with Einstein.
  • shelva
    shelva 10 February 2014 09: 06
    0
    Are we so stupid? That we separately need a course in political economy about .. "What is money and how to deal with it ??
    1. dddym
      10 February 2014 09: 53
      0
      Well, everyone decides to read it or not.
  • MsRedMaster
    MsRedMaster 10 February 2014 09: 09
    0
    Here's how to fight:
  • calocha
    calocha 10 February 2014 09: 39
    +3
    Socialism is our future! Our lighthouse in the coming centuries ...
  • Normal
    Normal 10 February 2014 09: 42
    +3
    Article plus. I like it. Simple, intelligible and without bothers.

    ... each member of society is invested in the development of the whole society, and not just himself. Yes, you have to work all your life, but even a small constant contribution increases the reliability of the system as a whole. Instead of consumption, a super idea is proposed. The forces gluing society are so high that no external forces can destroy even, for example, small Cuba. We have to fight with the help of an advertisement for a “better world”. As they did with our country, fooling and imposing other people's values.


    Exactly! Absolutely right!
  • Neophyte
    Neophyte 10 February 2014 09: 47
    +6
    Lost their heads about hairs do not cry! Remember 1991, as enthusiastic
    Muscovites lay under armored personnel carriers and cried with happiness that they would soon live both in the EU \ something similar in Ukraine \. They themselves gave the Union a saw cut and enthusiastically accepted the clan of thieves and criminals.
    A man is weak, he can no longer give up the benefits of consumption. Perhaps no
    exactly when humanity draws out all the resources of the planet, the economy
    survival will be planned.
    1. dddym
      10 February 2014 09: 54
      +1
      in general, for example, in corporations, the economy is planned!
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 10 February 2014 10: 15
    +2
    I think the same as the author of the article. I came to these (as if so simple) thoughts far from immediately. It seems to be - so complicated? Socialism should naturally produce goods of maximum durability (not counting consumables), because the longer the goods are more durable, more reliable and more economical to use, the greater part of social wealth can be saved and transferred to development.
    At the same time, mechanisms must be put in place that allow, in a short time, to develop the production of new goods in any required quantities. Under these two conditions, socialism would easily crush any other social system. That's just ...
    This fundamentally contradicts the whole model described by the author - the ability of Uncle Vasya to inflate his cheeks to the shoulders in front of Uncle Fedya. It was no coincidence that the communists of Stalin's format insisted so persistently about the new man - malicious envy and dirty satisfaction from someone else's "loser" are not suitable as movers for socialism. However, Comrade Suslov turned out to be, shall we say, an unsuitable educator of new people. And the rest ...
    So the economy of socialism in the USSR was slowly reoriented towards the release of garbage, which was tirelessly aggravated by rational proposals. I really wanted to create deficits at all levels. Well, to cheek out ...
  • Gardamir
    Gardamir 10 February 2014 10: 30
    +1
    Unexpectedly and beautifully, I’m talking about Uncle Petya and Uncle Vasya. But nothing was said about Uncle Kolya, but he doesn’t have a car and he doesn’t care about tires. He would have a quality shovel to dig up a garden.
  • Mviktor
    Mviktor 10 February 2014 11: 01
    0
    -Yeltsin, Chubais, Bourgulis, Gaidar stake them in the ass each aspen

    I'm with two hands for
    1. Gardamir
      Gardamir 10 February 2014 20: 12
      +1
      But didn't this company carry out uniform repressions? Let people not die in prisons and camps.
  • negeroi
    negeroi 10 February 2014 11: 54
    +1
    Um ... I don’t know what to say. I myself have been struggling for something for years and even decades. I am calculating, looking for patterns until I resolve this or that issue for myself. But for me, capitalism-socialism has long been resolved, and there is no need for calculations. The so-called capitalist countries, not capitalist for a long time, but socialist ones. Not immediately, looking at us, taking into account errors and problems, they built socialist states in the West. And we all calculate how many capitalists will not crawl into the eye of a needle. What is the point of justifying the system of sitting on a chair with two half-pops, when it’s clear to a one-year-old baby? Science for the sake of it? Well, well, there are plenty of economic publications, it’s necessary there, to specialists. if it’s about ideology, it’s also not clear. The founding fathers, it’s not that they would lie, but they were completely mistaken, for that they were the founders, like the Gritsa. Marx and Engels came up with social nonsense, and tried to portray it in a scientific way. The illiterate believe this nonsense, because literacy does not allow literate. Moreover, the illiterate do not even understand what cannibalistic system is, and when it is implemented, they themselves will be processed into bone meal. After all, the capitalists didn’t invent the golden billion, but the socialists. Lenin began to implement the program .Better less, better, he talked about Russian people. I wanted to drive all over the concentration camps, I wanted to re-educate. ALL. And the socialist angels would leave the camp. Better less, better. So there would be an angel billion on earth. the rest on the lights, but in the furnace of the world revolution. Oh, why am I doing an educational program here ?! This is not my educational program, this is Uncle educational program, it’s about eating a spoon more convenient than not eating at all, it enlightens us. And the fact that the damned capitalists laid down theories and built socialism, we in We won’t talk about this article. You’ll think of capitalist social guarantees and social obligations of capitalist states to your citizens. This is garbage. The main force in truth. The truth is that states with completely different social systems and different regimes were able to build socially oriented economies and monarchies and republics. parliamentary and presidential. And we don’t, we’re calculating how much smarter we are than their fools. So the USSR was broken up both from the outside and from the inside, it’s not necessary to calculate, it’s understandable and true. One is worried, the calculators remained as helpers ruin the country.
    1. Bene valete
      Bene valete 10 February 2014 12: 57
      -2
      BRAVO! Bravo! Bravo!
      Well said!
    2. dddym
      10 February 2014 16: 22
      0
      conclusions from where about Marx and about inventing the golden billion? Share the links and just try to refute Marx! Every self-respecting capitalist has read Marx - and he, oddly enough, helps him - only for some reason you consider this to be social nonsense. But the capitalist countries - the socialist countries are generally a kapets ... The social guarantees and social obligations of the capitalists are the product of an irreconcilable struggle of the socialists, if you want Marxists and trade unions with their exploiters, not a single capitalist of the social programs will implement it if it is not profitable for him!
      1. negeroi
        negeroi 10 February 2014 17: 30
        -1
        Are you talking about links? It’s very good about links. Once you need links, confirm your materiality, you must say that you don’t know who to ask people? The document should be shown to begin with. Maybe you are a robot, the program is malicious. Present the documents, then let's talk about links. Explorer Mlyn!

        But Marx was refuted more than once or twice, but you have not read those books. Nobody will refute Marx, there is nothing to refute, he is unscientific to refute it. The most stable and well-fed countries are totalitarian sects. Not for long but what that is, they are stable. Only North Korea is an exception. It’s lazy to refute Marx, you are interested in doing it. But I already know the problems of Marxism, fascism and feminism, and many more ideologies that do not take into account human nature, they wishful thinking. with a set of pseudo-scientific terms for the illiterate to make an impression. There is no point in refuting Nazi racism, it is unscientific. Marxism as a phenomenon, as a political party or parties, yes, but as a science, no. And there is no point in refuting Adam Smith. He does not he is right and it has been proved by life. But there are believers in him now. Like in Marx. But there is nothing to be denied here. Religion is holy. Only you are in vain all your ardor to me. I am not for the capitalists, and this was clear from mine comment above e. And if it’s not clear .. litter, the conversation did not take place, and will not take place anymore.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. dddym
          10 February 2014 17: 34
          0
          Well, since there are no links, your proofs of "Marx's unscientific nature" are worthless. In fact, where is Marx and where are your statements about his incompetence ... He spit on your thoughts about his "unscientific nature" ... And his books are read by entrepreneurs and capitalists all over the world! One thing is not clear why since he is "unscientific"?
          1. negeroi
            negeroi 10 February 2014 17: 46
            -1
            I don’t understand something. Are you balaboka? Where are the links confirming your words? Where? Do you need links, provide links. Don’t know too well on the Moon. And how are they read by Marquez! But do not back down from the topic of links. Present at least one link to confirmation of your words. Otherwise, it’s worthless to you yourself if you didn’t show a link to confirm your identity. Please link. Do not be a blank call, provide a link.
            1. dddym
              10 February 2014 18: 26
              0
              http://vk.com/dddym
              any other evidence needed? If you do not believe this, you can call - there the phone number is indicated.
              now you provide a link about the golden billion and that it was invented by the socialists as you wrote above, and at the same time a link to the unscientificness of Marx ... And yes - note that I do not require any documents from you ...
              1. dddym
                10 February 2014 18: 58
                0
                and also - stop throwing a tantrum - just try to honestly argue - you're not a socialist if Marx is unscientific for you - so that about the CIA - it's more to you - since the work of discrediting Marx grows from there ...
          2. The comment was deleted.
  • Bene valete
    Bene valete 10 February 2014 13: 23
    0
    Only to the words of Mr. Comrade / negeroi SU / add.
    You read the statements and it seems as if you are at the Pioneer-Komsomol-Party meeting that way in the year 1981 ...
    And everyone says so - how to speak in public, so that they would not be thrown out of a 10-year-old queue for an apartment (supposedly free), or they would not be expelled from a job post, or they would not be deleted from the list of business trips to Moscow (and you can’t buy a house for your wife and normal children ...) And at home in the kitchen, among your own, you sprinkle saliva from injustice and absurdity over a bottle of vermouth with saliva ...
    As if there was no end of the 80s, beginning of the 90s - a return-failure of some 30 years ago!
    And the feeling is that people forgot everything and everything revolves in a circle ...
    In how Soviet agitprom got into genes!)))
    1. dddym
      10 February 2014 16: 27
      0
      I don’t want to argue at all - you haven’t brought a single argument at all - just shout ... What again does the specter of communism keep you from sleeping? So quickly transfer capital to Switzerland and so soon it will strike!
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. negeroi
        negeroi 10 February 2014 17: 55
        -1
        I don’t know how to scream on the Internet. I won’t persuade stupid people reading texts, I won’t persuade you, I’m more interested in things. I don’t look at a ghost, unlike you, I studied it well. You can’t sleep in your CIA laboratories, you’re dreaming of a Russian , with your Moosadov friends. Soon you will become traitors and provocateurs at the lanterns to make decorations, so hurry to your America. But at least put a link. And? Or brains are not enough for such an action, which for some reason requires from others. Well, at least one reference to the personality? American soul does not, or mmo-sosadovskie principles do not allow?
        1. dddym
          10 February 2014 18: 31
          0
          what nonsense ..... Link about what you want? So I specifically demanded that you link as proof of your claim that the social billion was invented by the socialists
          Marx and Engels came up with social nonsense, and tried to portray it scientifically. They are completely illiterate, because literacy does not allow literate. Moreover, illiterates do not even understand what cannibalistic system is and, when implemented, they themselves will be processed into bone meal. After all, it was not the capitalists who invented the billion, but the socialists. Lenin just started implementing the program. Better less, better, he was talking about Russian people. I wanted to drive everything through the concentration camps, I wanted to ALL. And from the camp, the social angels cal will go
          that really can you just throw foam ??? Then what kind of conversation can it really be fool
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. negeroi
            negeroi 10 February 2014 19: 44
            0
            You’re throwing foam from your brain. I personally demand you to present documents. Or a link to them. And if you don’t show it, then there’s nothing to talk with the CIA. Are you taught in your America like that, attack Russians yes? Link to you what do you need to provide a link to? You learned the word, but don’t know how to use it. Link to it. What will the link give you to? Yes, there should be dozens, hundreds of links in any subject, if this is a subject of scientific debate . And who are you? And what should I give you a link to? You want a link, present the documents, and show the link, at least one confirmation that you are a sane person, you understand what you are talking about. Provide a certificate from a psychiatrist. You heard a ring about the link, but don’t you know how to use it. And you can use it for anyone and whatever. I need proof of your identity. And if you require links from someone, please play according to your own, invented rules, present your identity documents and a certificate of sanity. What is with you A CRA can be a conversation, unless on presentation reference. Give a link to your documents. Why do you require from others that which you yourself cannot?
            1. dddym
              11 February 2014 00: 11
              0
              Can you read? I threw the link I can wipe her again http://vk.com/dddym! You just have nothing to say here you are on the person and go - the demagogue! Slander - the most common weapon of the demagogue! But you didn’t show the link!
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. negeroi
            negeroi 10 February 2014 20: 07
            0
            In order to require links, you need to know what it is, and what it is eaten with, and how it works. Firstly, the link is ignorant that the goat is slaughter. Secondly, there is no sense in links in political disputes because when one is about green, others are about oily. Thirdly, the link in the boorish booby is probably just a nocturne on the drainpipes. Why the boorish link? What would you be rude to the links are not needed. Fourth, this is a student trick of the idle talk of the ignorant. When both follow the links and google can only justify Position. The link can help someone in order to read and find out. And here is a link for telling the magic phrase to defeat the enemy first? Will I give you links to books you will not read them? Really? Well, here’s the link works of V.I. Lenin. Unlike you, I studied him, and not only him, studied for many years. Just something tells me that you didn’t read the Founder’s Father, you won’t even be after the link. And to all other things, give me a link, not only can you use it, so give a link y on your reality. Present a document.
            1. dddym
              11 February 2014 00: 16
              0
              While only you are rude! Sheer lies! If you don’t have anything to refer to, just say so! I threw you my page here twice! And she is real by which you can contact me! Link! To the studio! where and when did the socialists come up with the golden billion !!! It will be enough if you are talking about a book - just a photo from it and a volume number !!! Prove that Marxism is social nonsense and is not scientific !!! As you write above! Also a socialist - yes, what kind of socialist are you - the CIA employee is you!
            2. dddym
              11 February 2014 00: 44
              0
              The Golden Billion is a concept from demography and sociology that reflects the current imbalance in the standard of living and consumption between the population of developed and developing countries in the world with limited world resources.
              Gnoseologically proceeds from the premises of Malthusianism - the theory of the late 18th century by the English scientist Thomas Malthus. The name is associated with the total population of developed capitalist countries: USA (311 million), Canada (34,3 million), Australia (22,5 million), EU countries (28 countries, total 500 million), Japan (127,4 million), and also Israel, South Korea and its growth prospects in the XXI century [1] [2]
  • dropout
    dropout 10 February 2014 13: 27
    0
    What are we all about politics, but politics! Let’s better talk about women! ... I mean, about prostitutes! ... I mean, about the deputies! In short, let's talk about politics!
  • alone
    alone 10 February 2014 19: 29
    0
    some argue that capitalism affects the republics of the former Union so badly. People, and you and I are not capitalism. We have feudalism that is hiding behind capitalism))
    1. dddym
      10 February 2014 19: 36
      0
      capitalism - the child of feudalism - they are two apples from one apple tree!
  • dddym
    11 February 2014 16: 53
    0
    now about the overthrowers of Marx - all the overthrowers start with the inconsistency within the book "Capital" of things and labor. That is, they are trying to prove that labor power is not a commodity. Marx says that a commodity is a thing that can be torn away from a person, and then suddenly Marx points out that labor power is a commodity. However, none of them draws an analogy of a different property, for example, electricity cannot be touched, but it is sold. The entire rink of criticism revolves around the labor force as not a commodity, of course - I would like to work for free for my uncle and get paid not by the amount of effort, but by the amount of goods produced for the owner. But this is nothing more than slavery and has nothing to do with the modern world. There are two partners, an employer and an applicant, and they are bargaining - what is wrong here? Or will we return to quarries in early 20th century England? Marx defined for the first time in scientific - I repeat SCIENTIFIC work that labor is a commodity! That is, he put the worker in a position equal to the employer! This is the revolutionary nature of his ideas, before that it was believed that only the final product has value, and the efforts and sacrifices for its production do not matter. It is enough to turn to the safety precautions of the early 20th century to feel it. When there was not a day, no matter what some enterprise in Europe would not happen to misfortune, and no courts imprisoned these slave owners under the guise of bourgeois for crippling their own personnel.