Franklin Delano Dzhemsovich Roosevelt in the first of his four inaugural speeches 1933.03.04 (it was he who transferred the inauguration of the presidents of the United States of America from March 4, as happened from the 1789 of the year due to the weakness of communication and communication, on 20 January), said : “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”. I think this also applies to the sanctions promised by our strategic competitors for the first steps towards the reunification of our country.
The point is not even that economic sanctions are two-edged, that they will cause serious losses to our Western counterparts. It is they who could still survive - in the end they are richer than us and can remember the saying “as long as the thick dries — the thin will die.” But the situation is much worse for them. I recently sent an article to Business Journal, where I talk in some detail (as far as possible in the publication, where I’ve been given 8 thousands of typed characters in each issue).
Economic sanctions will simply force us to reestablish those productions that we once sacrificed for our foreign partners, on the assumption that the longer the processing chain, the deeper the division of labor, the higher the productivity of this labor. Having revived these technological chains in our country, we seem to be doomed to a certain decrease in the efficiency of our production in comparison with the current state. It turns out that even this effectiveness will not decrease.
As Mikhail L. Khazin rightly points out, the lengthening of the technological chain is accompanied by an increase in risks. While there is work on this chain, while intermediate products are transferred from one of its links to another, a potential consumer may change his mind and prefer some other consumption - respectively, all the funds already pumped into this production will remain unredeemed. Khazin even came to the conclusion: the current stage of the general crisis of market economy stems precisely from the fact that the likelihood of risks in the current super-long production chains is too great, and the entire modern financial system is no longer able to compensate for these risks. Proceeding from this, it turns out: although the reduction of production chains lowers them, so to speak, formal efficiency, but it increases the effectiveness of real, calculated taking into account the probability of losses according to the mechanism described by Khazin.
Therefore, now the sanctions that can be applied to us will prove to be even beneficial for us in the end. We will not only develop our own production, but also reduce production risks, thereby raising the real - and not purely accounting - profitability of production. Therefore, I would not be afraid of sanctions on the site of our manufacturers.
Another thing is that the sanctions are disadvantageous to merchants. They do not take on the risks associated with production chains, but deal only with finished products. Moreover, under the threat of failure in partnership, they can squeeze out of any supplier the price that does not take into account the risk insurance described by Khazin: it is not difficult to replace the failed supplier with a new merchant. Therefore, sanctions that increase the apparent part of production costs will prevent traders far more than production workers. And the economic bloc of our government, as is well known, consists almost exclusively of adherents of libertarian dogma. This dogma is built, as I have repeatedly noted, in the interests of merchants, because it strongly neglects all the technical and economic effects arising from the existence of technological chains and generally from the existence of complex, multi-stage interconnections between business entities. Therefore, the economic bloc of our government since the Gaidar times reflects the interests of merchants - to the detriment of the interests of production workers (and most of society, because much more people depend on production than on trade).
I believe that the threat of sanctions is designed primarily to cause a split in our government - between the proponents of the interests of traders and production workers, and accordingly in society - between the dealers and production workers. But we need to keep in mind: if we surrender, if we give way to newly-minted sanctioners, then we will lose the opportunity to protect the interests of our entire economy - not only production workers, but also traders. When their more or less homegrown Pyaterochka and Seventh Continents give way to purely imported Auchan and Billam, the bulk of the profits from the trade will also slip past the mouth of domestic traders and advocates of their interests. So, in terms of ignoring the threat of sanctions, the interests of the whole society are practically the same.
And who does not understand this, who lives according to the thieves' principle “die you today, and I - tomorrow,” he ultimately strives to ensure that society not only does not care about its interests, but also takes all necessary measures to prevent its attempts to resist public interest.