National Security and Army Modernization
To strengthen Russia's security, a forced rearmament of the army with the newest non-nuclear forces is necessary. weapons
Creating an innovative economy instead of a raw-material one, as mentioned in the President’s Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, is also a prerequisite for modernizing the military-industrial complex and re-equipping the army with the latest weapons. The Russian army is 90% armed with morally and physically depreciated weapons.
So in service are mostly obsolete 20 thousand. tanks and 1800 Soviet-made combat aircraft. Of these, two thirds are in need of major repairs. In the most serious condition is the ammunition industry. Those ammunition (shells, mines, aerial bombs, missiles, etc.) that were manufactured in the USSR have reached the expiration date for safe storage and it is dangerous to use them for firing, there may be premature explosions and deaths of people, guns, planes, helicopters, ships that these ammunition is used. There is practically nowhere to produce new ammunition, since the ammunition enterprises have outdated equipment, and qualified personnel have left the industry and become unqualified. An unfavorable situation has developed in the field of nuclear munitions created back in the USSR, which have a certain shelf life. The creation of new nuclear weapons is impossible without experimental nuclear explosions, which are prohibited by international agreements.
In such a situation, Russia will inevitably lose its nuclear weapons. In the US, the situation is similar with nuclear weapons. But the American army was re-equipped with the latest non-nuclear weapons, unlike Russia, and in the event of war, Russia would be virtually defenseless. The aggressiveness of the United States relies on a huge military budget, which is more than 15 times more Russian. The US strategic goal is the unrestricted use of the Earth’s limited natural resources (oil, gas, metals, etc.) through world domination based on military power, since economic power, based on uncontrolled dollar emissions for the past decades, has come to an end.
The most serious obstacle to solving this problem is Russia's SNF, which are the only ones in the world capable of destroying the United States in the first strike, but Russia does not create a territorial missile defense and is unable to defend itself from a devastating retaliatory strike, unlike the United States, which are actively building such a missile defense system. The START Treaty, which is currently signed by the presidents of Russia and the United States, to reduce nuclear warheads and their carriers is aimed at reducing our nuclear missile potential. That is, for Russia there is a prospect of losing the effectiveness of strategic nuclear forces (SNF): firstly, because of the impossibility of modernizing nuclear charges without their testing, secondly, because of reduction of the SNF under the START treaty and, thirdly, because the rapidly developing missile defense system of the United States, which is absent from Russia.
Currently, the NATO strategic nuclear forces (the United States, Britain and France) have significant superiority compared to the Russian strategic nuclear forces, only the United States has 1195 strategic carriers of nuclear weapons and 5573 nuclear warheads, as well as thousands of strategic cruise missiles, Russia has 811 carriers and 3906 nuclear warheads.
The United States has long been preparing its armed forces to destroy the Soviet and now Russian SNFs in the first unexpected attack, while the remnants of the Russian nuclear warheads who survived such a strike should be shot down by the US missile defense. Colonel-General Ivashov writes about this: “For the first time since the beginning of the nuclear race, the United States gets a chance to reliably cover the Russian strategic potential with a missile defense system and an arsenal of high-precision cruise missiles in conjunction with radioelectronic suppression of control systems.” In HBO (see No. 41, 2009), Major General Belous said of this problem: “A sudden hit of 50 – 60 with sea-based nuclear cruise missiles could disrupt the counterattack of Russia's strategic forces.”
American experts have a similar point of view: “The United States will soon be able to destroy the long-range nuclear potentials of Russia and China by first striking cruise missiles with nuclear warheads invisible to Russian and Chinese radars” (Foreign affairs. March, April, 2006). In such conditions, when a real threat of destruction hangs over the Russian strategic nuclear forces, the START Treaty should at least, first, freeze the US missile defense, and secondly, take into account the strategic nuclear forces of Britain and France, since in the event of a nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia, the British and French missiles will fly to Russia, not the United States, and thirdly, accounting for strategic cruise missiles in the US strategic nuclear forces. The START Treaty only noted the legally non-binding link between the SNF and missile defense, as well as the oral statement of the Russian president that the Russian Federation will withdraw from the START Treaty if the development of missile defense becomes dangerous for our country.
But as long as the United States conducts R & D on missile defense (they will try to keep them secret), Russia will have no reason to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, and when they put it into service, Russia’s withdrawal from strategic offensive arms becomes useless. In the START Treaty there are no requirements for freezing missile defense, the SNF of England and France (which is more than 400 nuclear weapons that can destroy 400 cities of Russia), as well as the reduction and control of cruise missiles, but only a mutual reduction of strategic carriers to 700 units and 1550 nuclear warheads.
This jeopardizes the national security of Russia, since the Russian strategic nuclear forces are enclosed in a strict framework under the START Treaty, and the American cruise missiles and missile defense, as well as the strategic nuclear forces of Britain and France, will be developed uncontrollably to the level when they can be used to destroy the Russian strategic nuclear forces.
To strengthen Russia's national security, it is necessary to strengthen and protect the SNF from the first strike, as well as the timely detection of not only ballistic, but also cruise missiles participating in the first strike, which is necessary for delivering an effective retaliatory strike that is unacceptable for the United States. This will reduce the likelihood of a first strike by the US on the Russian strategic nuclear forces.
To strengthen security, Russia also needs accelerated rearmament of the army with the latest non-nuclear weapons, but this requires appropriate means. According to the president of Russia, it takes about 2020 trillion to rearm the army before 23. rub., that is, on average 2,3 trillion. in year. Russia's defense budget for 2010 year is equal to 1,3 trillion. rubles, while the state budget expenditures by one third are not secured by incomes, the lack of which is compensated from the reserve fund, which ends this year. According to the forecasts of the Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation, the country's economy will reach the pre-crisis level only by 2014, and no one knows what will happen to the economy further. That is, in the foreseeable future, the state does not have the means to fulfill the plan to re-equip the army with the newest weapon at least 70% by 2020 year with the corrupt management system existing in Russia, when the magnitude of annual corruption in 10 exceeds the state defense budget.
In this regard, the following fundamental questions arise: first, who is interested and who is not in modernization? In his article “Russia, forward!”, The president of Russia said that “corrupt officials” and entrepreneurs who “do nothing” are against modernization. Secondly, where to get the necessary funds for the modernization of the morally and physically depreciated production sectors created in the USSR (military-industrial complex, agriculture, medicine, housing and communal services, engineering, transport, etc.) and the creation of knowledge-intensive industries? Thirdly, what kind of management system is needed to modernize the economy? The modern management system is permeated with corruption, and is not suitable for solving strategic tasks, including the rearmament of the army, set by the president. Without a satisfactory resolution of these fundamental issues, the President’s proposal on modernizing the economy cannot be fulfilled.
The first problem is: who is interested and who can the president rely on to implement modernization in practice? Scientists, engineers, non-corrupt managers, workers, etc., that is, labor collectives of enterprises, research institutes, universities, etc., as well as students - future members of labor collectives are primarily interested in modernizing the economy, increasing labor productivity and a corresponding increase in income. But in order to realize this interest in the relevant practical actions, labor collectives should have a statutory right to control entrepreneurs. In the State Duma of the Russian Federation at the end of 90-s, a draft law “On labor collectives” was considered. This law passed the first reading, but was then removed from consideration.
It is necessary with the help of the president to adopt this law, then the president will find millions of active assistants in the modernization of the country.
The second problem: where to get the funds to modernize and create an innovative economy? If they are borrowed in the West, then Russia, firstly, can again get stuck in debt, and secondly, it’s unprofitable for the West to create an innovative economy competitive in the world market in Russia and re-equip the army with the latest weapons. But in Russia there are the means necessary for these purposes, they are in a “bound” state. Consider the main sources of these funds.
1. Accumulated in the former Stabilization Fund and the reserves of the Central Bank about 600 billion dollars (18 trillion rubles). To combat the crisis has already spent a third of these funds. On the one hand, it strengthened the banking system, which was not suitable for financing production, and also doubled the number of dollar billionaires. On the other hand, the ruble was devalued by a third, loans and working capital for enterprises decreased, consumption of the majority of the population decreased due to inflation and devaluation of the ruble, unemployment increased, production decreased, etc.
2. Corruption, which is estimated at 12 trillion. rub. in year. This is 10 (ten!) Annual defense budgets. On the one hand, corruption permeates the state administration, and this undermines the actions of the official authorities (the president, the government, the State Duma, etc.). On the other hand, corruption takes away money from businessmen, which are necessary for carrying out modernization, and from citizens, which reduces their living standards.
3. Over the years of reform, over 2 trillion has been exported abroad. Doll.
4. The necessary funds can be obtained in the budget at the expense of the state monopoly on natural rent and "sinful" goods (alcohol, tobacco, etc.), as well as through the introduction of a progressive tax on personal income, etc.
5. Citizens of Russia receive almost half of their income at the expense of the “shadow” economy, which halves the taxes collected by the state. The shadow economy employs 25 million people who do not pay taxes.
6. One of their sources of funds for investment should be the target issue of the Central Bank, since the ratio of the amount of money in the Russian economy to GDP is only about 40%, in developed countries about 100%, in China - 150%.
We need the political will of the president to direct these funds to the modernization of Russia. Mobilizing even part of the funds from these sources will allow at least double the budget needed to modernize the national economy and create an innovative economy, as well as to increase spending on defense and security, production, education, science, culture and the social sphere.
The third problem concerns the modern tasks of the new management system. Modernization of traditional industries and the creation of new high-tech industries are impossible without the suppression of corruption. 2,5 million people (government officials and entrepreneurs) are involved in “business” corruption, and half of the population is involved in “everyday” corruption. To solve this problem, a systematic approach is needed, including a package of anti-corruption laws (it was adopted by the State Duma of the Russian Federation and operates with 01.01.09), a revision of all previously adopted laws in terms of their “corruption component”, ensuring effective work of law enforcement and the judicial system (without bribes, gangster roofs and telephone law).
But it is especially important to create effective control over both “corrupt officials” and “do-nothing entrepreneurs”. Elected government bodies, both in the Center and in the localities, should control the executive branch (for this, a draft law on parliamentary control should be adopted), and elected Councils of labor collectives should control the administration of enterprises, as required by the draft law On Labor Collectives. This opens up public administration for public control and creates a society of free and responsible people, as President Dmitry Medvedev said in his message.
The main element of the new management system is the optimal combination of planned and market management methods. Such management methods were used with great success in the time of the NEP (1921 – 1928) and in modern China from the 1978 year (where GDP increased 15 times in 30 years), in relation to its tasks and capabilities.
Compare the results of the reforms in China and Russia, where the last 19 years have used different management methods within the framework of a market economy.
Since 1990, China’s GDP has grown more than 5 (five!) Times. During the same period, Russia managed to restore the level of GDP 90 of the year, but of lower quality after the recession in 1990-s (the high-tech sector of the economy was almost destroyed, science and education suffered great losses, the demographic situation deteriorated sharply, the excess mortality was around 15 mln., insufficient supply of the army with the newest weapons, etc.), that is, in fact, there was a significant decline in GDP.
During the crisis in the first nine months of 2009, China’s GDP increased by about 8%, while in Russia, GDP fell by 10%, and industry fell by 15%. How do you explain such a huge difference in the results of reforms in China and Russia over the past 19 years? Main reason: different management methods are used. In China, it is planning-market management methods, and in Russia a corrupt bureaucratic system of governance prevails. There is a state planning plan in China, which is constantly engaged in planning and forecasting for 15 – 20 years, the public sector includes energy, mining, aerospace, military industrial complex, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, metallurgy, etc.
The land is in state and collective ownership. Banks are mostly public. There are two types of banks: commercial, profit-oriented, and political, which provide long-term loans at low interest rates to meet government development objectives. Prices are more than 90% dictated by the market. The state sets firm prices for basic products (oil, gas, electricity, metals, etc.). To suppress corruption, a system of measures is used: the control of labor collectives over the administration of enterprises, the confiscation of property, public processes, the death penalty, control over the income and expenses of officials and their relatives, etc.
A planning-market management system in China allows for an active investment policy that, despite chronic budget deficits (6 – 10% of GDP) and a large amount of money in the economy, holds back inflation (in 2007 – 2008 years it was in China 5 – 6% per year, whereas in Russia - 10 – 13%). The share of investment in Russia's GDP is less than 20% versus 50% in China. Powerful investment and determines the rapid growth of the Chinese economy. In China, a progressive income tax scale (from 5 to 45%) is used, while in Russia this tax is equal to 13% for all citizens, as a result, the budget does not receive significant funds.
To modernize and create an innovative economy, a new management system is needed, including a state plan (such as in China and India) and a system of state-owned banks capable of issuing long-term loans to low-interest production. The program of modernization of the national economy should be developed by the State Planning Committee in conjunction with the Russian Academy of Sciences and leading universities with a focus on the fundamental provisions of the Message of the President of Russia. Liberal economists, who now rule the Russian economy, cannot lead a new management system, including the state plan and the state banking system, since the liberal theory of the free market, on which they are based, is in principle unsuitable in the conditions of crisis and economic restructuring. For the new management apparatus, specialists are needed who have experience in public administration and understand the need for an optimal combination of planned and market methods of management in modern conditions.
Creating an innovative economy instead of a raw-material one, as mentioned in the President’s Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, is also a prerequisite for modernizing the military-industrial complex and re-equipping the army with the latest weapons. The Russian army is 90% armed with morally and physically depreciated weapons. So in service are mostly obsolete 20 thousand. tanks and 1800 Soviet-made combat aircraft. Of these, two thirds are in need of major repairs. In the most serious condition is the ammunition industry. Those ammunition (shells, mines, aerial bombs, missiles, etc.) that were manufactured in the USSR have reached the expiration date for safe storage and it is dangerous to use them for firing, there may be premature explosions and deaths of people, guns, planes, helicopters, ships that these ammunition is used. There is practically nowhere to produce new ammunition, since the ammunition enterprises have outdated equipment, and qualified personnel have left the industry and become unqualified. An unfavorable situation has developed in the field of nuclear munitions created back in the USSR, which have a certain shelf life. The creation of new nuclear weapons is impossible without experimental nuclear explosions, which are prohibited by international agreements.
In such a situation, Russia will inevitably lose its nuclear weapons. In the US, the situation is similar with nuclear weapons. But the American army was re-equipped with the latest non-nuclear weapons, unlike Russia, and in the event of war, Russia would be virtually defenseless. The aggressiveness of the United States relies on a huge military budget, which is more than 15 times more Russian. The US strategic goal is the unrestricted use of the Earth’s limited natural resources (oil, gas, metals, etc.) through world domination based on military power, since economic power, based on uncontrolled dollar emissions for the past decades, has come to an end.
The most serious obstacle to solving this problem is Russia's SNF, which are the only ones in the world capable of destroying the United States in the first strike, but Russia does not create a territorial missile defense and is unable to defend itself from a devastating retaliatory strike, unlike the United States, which are actively building such a missile defense system. The START Treaty, which is currently signed by the presidents of Russia and the United States, to reduce nuclear warheads and their carriers is aimed at reducing our nuclear missile potential. That is, for Russia there is a prospect of losing the effectiveness of strategic nuclear forces (SNF): firstly, because of the impossibility of modernizing nuclear charges without their testing, secondly, because of reduction of the SNF under the START treaty and, thirdly, because the rapidly developing missile defense system of the United States, which is absent from Russia.
Currently, the NATO strategic nuclear forces (the United States, Britain and France) have significant superiority compared to the Russian strategic nuclear forces, only the United States has 1195 strategic carriers of nuclear weapons and 5573 nuclear warheads, as well as thousands of strategic cruise missiles, Russia has 811 carriers and 3906 nuclear warheads.
The United States has long been preparing its armed forces to destroy the Soviet and now Russian SNFs in the first unexpected attack, while the remnants of the Russian nuclear warheads who survived such a strike should be shot down by the US missile defense. Colonel-General Ivashov writes about this: “For the first time since the beginning of the nuclear race, the United States gets a chance to reliably cover the Russian strategic potential with a missile defense system and an arsenal of high-precision cruise missiles in conjunction with radioelectronic suppression of control systems.” In HBO (see No. 41, 2009), Major General Belous said of this problem: “A sudden hit of 50 – 60 with sea-based nuclear cruise missiles could disrupt the counterattack of Russia's strategic forces.”
American experts have a similar point of view: “The United States will soon be able to destroy the long-range nuclear potentials of Russia and China by first striking cruise missiles with nuclear warheads invisible to Russian and Chinese radars” (Foreign affairs. March, April, 2006). In such conditions, when a real threat of destruction hangs over the Russian strategic nuclear forces, the START Treaty should at least, first, freeze the US missile defense, and secondly, take into account the strategic nuclear forces of Britain and France, since in the event of a nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia, the British and French missiles will fly to Russia, not the United States, and thirdly, accounting for strategic cruise missiles in the US strategic nuclear forces. The START Treaty only noted the legally non-binding link between the SNF and missile defense, as well as the oral statement of the Russian president that the Russian Federation will withdraw from the START Treaty if the development of missile defense becomes dangerous for our country.
But as long as the United States conducts R & D on missile defense (they will try to keep them secret), Russia will have no reason to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, and when they put it into service, Russia’s withdrawal from strategic offensive arms becomes useless. In the START Treaty there are no requirements for freezing missile defense, the SNF of England and France (which is more than 400 nuclear weapons that can destroy 400 cities of Russia), as well as the reduction and control of cruise missiles, but only a mutual reduction of strategic carriers to 700 units and 1550 nuclear warheads.
This jeopardizes the national security of Russia, since the Russian strategic nuclear forces are enclosed in a strict framework under the START Treaty, and the American cruise missiles and missile defense, as well as the strategic nuclear forces of Britain and France, will be developed uncontrollably to the level when they can be used to destroy the Russian strategic nuclear forces.
To strengthen Russia's national security, it is necessary to strengthen and protect the SNF from the first strike, as well as the timely detection of not only ballistic, but also cruise missiles participating in the first strike, which is necessary for delivering an effective retaliatory strike that is unacceptable for the United States. This will reduce the likelihood of a first strike by the US on the Russian strategic nuclear forces.
To strengthen security, Russia also needs accelerated rearmament of the army with the latest non-nuclear weapons, but this requires appropriate means. According to the president of Russia, it takes about 2020 trillion to rearm the army before 23. rub., that is, on average 2,3 trillion. in year. Russia's defense budget for 2010 year is equal to 1,3 trillion. rubles, while the state budget expenditures by one third are not secured by incomes, the lack of which is compensated from the reserve fund, which ends this year. According to the forecasts of the Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation, the country's economy will reach the pre-crisis level only by 2014, and no one knows what will happen to the economy further. That is, in the foreseeable future, the state does not have the means to fulfill the plan to re-equip the army with the newest weapon at least 70% by 2020 year with the corrupt management system existing in Russia, when the magnitude of annual corruption in 10 exceeds the state defense budget.
In this regard, the following fundamental questions arise: first, who is interested and who is not in modernization? In his article “Russia, forward!”, The president of Russia said that “corrupt officials” and entrepreneurs who “do nothing” are against modernization. Secondly, where to get the necessary funds for the modernization of the morally and physically depreciated production sectors created in the USSR (military-industrial complex, agriculture, medicine, housing and communal services, engineering, transport, etc.) and the creation of knowledge-intensive industries? Thirdly, what kind of management system is needed to modernize the economy? The modern management system is permeated with corruption, and is not suitable for solving strategic tasks, including the rearmament of the army, set by the president. Without a satisfactory resolution of these fundamental issues, the President’s proposal on modernizing the economy cannot be fulfilled.
The first problem is: who is interested and who can the president rely on to implement modernization in practice? Scientists, engineers, non-corrupt managers, workers, etc., that is, labor collectives of enterprises, research institutes, universities, etc., as well as students - future members of labor collectives are primarily interested in modernizing the economy, increasing labor productivity and a corresponding increase in income. But in order to realize this interest in the relevant practical actions, labor collectives should have a statutory right to control entrepreneurs. In the State Duma of the Russian Federation at the end of 90-s, a draft law “On labor collectives” was considered. This law passed the first reading, but was then removed from consideration.
It is necessary with the help of the president to adopt this law, then the president will find millions of active assistants in the modernization of the country.
The second problem: where to get the funds to modernize and create an innovative economy? If they are borrowed in the West, then Russia, firstly, can again get stuck in debt, and secondly, it’s unprofitable for the West to create an innovative economy competitive in the world market in Russia and re-equip the army with the latest weapons. But in Russia there are the means necessary for these purposes, they are in a “bound” state. Consider the main sources of these funds.
1. Accumulated in the former Stabilization Fund and the reserves of the Central Bank about 600 billion dollars (18 trillion rubles). To combat the crisis has already spent a third of these funds. On the one hand, it strengthened the banking system, which was not suitable for financing production, and also doubled the number of dollar billionaires. On the other hand, the ruble was devalued by a third, loans and working capital for enterprises decreased, consumption of the majority of the population decreased due to inflation and devaluation of the ruble, unemployment increased, production decreased, etc.
2. Corruption, which is estimated at 12 trillion. rub. in year. This is 10 (ten!) Annual defense budgets. On the one hand, corruption permeates the state administration, and this undermines the actions of the official authorities (the president, the government, the State Duma, etc.). On the other hand, corruption takes away money from businessmen, which are necessary for carrying out modernization, and from citizens, which reduces their living standards.
3. Over the years of reform, over 2 trillion has been exported abroad. Doll.
4. The necessary funds can be obtained in the budget at the expense of the state monopoly on natural rent and "sinful" goods (alcohol, tobacco, etc.), as well as through the introduction of a progressive tax on personal income, etc.
5. Citizens of Russia receive almost half of their income at the expense of the “shadow” economy, which halves the taxes collected by the state. The shadow economy employs 25 million people who do not pay taxes.
6. One of their sources of funds for investment should be the target issue of the Central Bank, since the ratio of the amount of money in the Russian economy to GDP is only about 40%, in developed countries about 100%, in China - 150%.
We need the political will of the president to direct these funds to the modernization of Russia. Mobilizing even part of the funds from these sources will allow at least double the budget needed to modernize the national economy and create an innovative economy, as well as to increase spending on defense and security, production, education, science, culture and the social sphere.
The third problem concerns the modern tasks of the new management system. Modernization of traditional industries and the creation of new high-tech industries are impossible without the suppression of corruption. 2,5 million people (government officials and entrepreneurs) are involved in “business” corruption, and half of the population is involved in “everyday” corruption. To solve this problem, a systematic approach is needed, including a package of anti-corruption laws (it was adopted by the State Duma of the Russian Federation and operates with 01.01.09), a revision of all previously adopted laws in terms of their “corruption component”, ensuring effective work of law enforcement and the judicial system (without bribes, gangster roofs and telephone law).
But it is especially important to create effective control over both “corrupt officials” and “do-nothing entrepreneurs”. Elected government bodies, both in the Center and in the localities, should control the executive branch (for this, a draft law on parliamentary control should be adopted), and elected Councils of labor collectives should control the administration of enterprises, as required by the draft law On Labor Collectives. This opens up public administration for public control and creates a society of free and responsible people, as President Dmitry Medvedev said in his message.
The main element of the new management system is the optimal combination of planned and market management methods. Such management methods were used with great success in the time of the NEP (1921 – 1928) and in modern China from the 1978 year (where GDP increased 15 times in 30 years), in relation to its tasks and capabilities.
Compare the results of the reforms in China and Russia, where the last 19 years have used different management methods within the framework of a market economy.
Since 1990, China’s GDP has grown more than 5 (five!) Times. During the same period, Russia managed to restore the level of GDP 90 of the year, but of lower quality after the recession in 1990-s (the high-tech sector of the economy was almost destroyed, science and education suffered great losses, the demographic situation deteriorated sharply, the excess mortality was around 15 mln., insufficient supply of the army with the newest weapons, etc.), that is, in fact, there was a significant decline in GDP.
During the crisis in the first nine months of 2009, China’s GDP increased by about 8%, while in Russia, GDP fell by 10%, and industry fell by 15%. How do you explain such a huge difference in the results of reforms in China and Russia over the past 19 years? Main reason: different management methods are used. In China, it is planning-market management methods, and in Russia a corrupt bureaucratic system of governance prevails. There is a state planning plan in China, which is constantly engaged in planning and forecasting for 15 – 20 years, the public sector includes energy, mining, aerospace, military industrial complex, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, metallurgy, etc.
The land is in state and collective ownership. Banks are mostly public. There are two types of banks: commercial, profit-oriented, and political, which provide long-term loans at low interest rates to meet government development objectives. Prices are more than 90% dictated by the market. The state sets firm prices for basic products (oil, gas, electricity, metals, etc.). To suppress corruption, a system of measures is used: the control of labor collectives over the administration of enterprises, the confiscation of property, public processes, the death penalty, control over the income and expenses of officials and their relatives, etc.
A planning-market management system in China allows for an active investment policy that, despite chronic budget deficits (6 – 10% of GDP) and a large amount of money in the economy, holds back inflation (in 2007 – 2008 years it was in China 5 – 6% per year, whereas in Russia - 10 – 13%). The share of investment in Russia's GDP is less than 20% versus 50% in China. Powerful investment and determines the rapid growth of the Chinese economy. In China, a progressive income tax scale (from 5 to 45%) is used, while in Russia this tax is equal to 13% for all citizens, as a result, the budget does not receive significant funds.
To modernize and create an innovative economy, a new management system is needed, including a state plan (such as in China and India) and a system of state-owned banks capable of issuing long-term loans to low-interest production. The program of modernization of the national economy should be developed by the State Planning Committee in conjunction with the Russian Academy of Sciences and leading universities with a focus on the fundamental provisions of the Message of the President of Russia. Liberal economists, who now rule the Russian economy, cannot lead a new management system, including the state plan and the state banking system, since the liberal theory of the free market, on which they are based, is in principle unsuitable in the conditions of crisis and economic restructuring. For the new management apparatus, specialists are needed who have experience in public administration and understand the need for an optimal combination of planned and market methods of management in modern conditions.
Information