Military Review

Incomplete development. Why are foreign investments dangerous?

Incomplete development. Why are foreign investments dangerous?

The historian, published under the pseudonym "Dmitry Zykin", in the recently published book "How to slander the great history of our country ”proves: the defeats of Russia in the Japanese and the First World Wars are not the result of the country's economic weakness, not the organizational weakness of its armed forces, but the deliberate sabotage of a part of the country's top that wanted to rise even higher. Something like a “second secret revolt” - as the initial stage of the Soviet Perestroika was called - or “millionaire revolt against billionaires” - as the First Maidan in December was called 2004. The stories about the lack of talent of commanders, poor armament and supplies, interethnic and interclass hatred are mainly the result of the imagination of liberal journalists who have been anti-state since then.

Much in this theory seems to me to be true: so, the idea of ​​defeating a country for personal victory occurred to many in history — it suffices to recall the names of the victorious commanders of Belisarius (he came from ordinary soldiers, so his pedigree is unknown) and Albrecht Wenzel Eusebius Villemovich von Waldstein (aka Wallenstein) who fell into disgrace for fear of the growth of their influence in the army (which led to a series of defeats for the Eastern Roman and Holy Roman Empire, respectively). Or Alexei IV Isaakovich Angel, in 1203, called the crusaders to Constantinople to return the throne to his father Isaac II Andronikovich (he became co-ruler under Isaac, but eventually both were overthrown for trying to impose an additional tax on the country to pay the crusaders the promised reward, and after a couple of months of the rule of other influential figures of the crusaders declared their own Latin empire, which lasted more than half a century. Much seems plausible, but requires additional research. And one motive of the book, in my opinion, is not only of historical interest, but is also important from the point of view of the current economy.

The book contains an extensive and very impressive statistics on the success of the Russian industry in the last half century of the empire - from the moment of the abolition of 1861.03.03 serfdom (hereinafter all dates on the Gregorian calendar). Almost all the key indicators of its economy grew at the highest rate in the world. An obvious conclusion follows from this: the country was healthy, successful, there were no fundamental internal causes of the defeats. This means that all the blame lies on internal schemers and their external partners. In particular, in 1904 – 1905, Russia struggled not only with relatively small (albeit rapidly developing) Japan, but also with openly supporting it (and almost its entire fleet) Britain, and with hidden opposing excessively fast competitors - and because generously lending to Japan - the United States of America.

Funny historical detail. The British-Japanese treaty 1904.01.30 obliged each of the empires to support the other, only if it turns out to be at war with more than one state. After the attack on Russia 1904.02.09, Japan was not entitled to rely on full-scale assistance. But immediately Japan declared a tiny (at that time about half a million people) Montenegro. This automatically gave Britain the right to do whatever it deems necessary for Japan without fear of accusations of violating the world order. Russia received only a few hundred volunteers who fought bravely, but for obvious reasons did not change the balance of power (not to mention the fact that volunteers have the right to join the armed forces of any country, regardless of the state of war, they are considered to be mercenaries much more than citizens of this country who are in similar posts). How little the position of Montenegro affected the war can be seen from the fact that the Portsmouth Peace Treaty of 1905.09.05 was signed only by Russia and Japan, and peace between Montenegro and Japan was concluded in 2006, when they accidentally remembered this trifle. The prince (with 1910.08.28 - the king) Nikolai Mirkovich Petrovich-Negosh was guided by the noblest promptings (and by the long-standing proximity of states and nations: thus, his daughter Militsa was then married to the Russian Grand Prince Peter Nikolaevich, and the daughter of Stan - Anastasia - to the son of Maria Nikolayevna Romanova Georgiy Maximillianovich Beauharnais, Duke of Leuchtenberg; in 1907, Stana married Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich). But half a century earlier, the publicist and literary critic Dmitry Pisarev warned: "Let our noble feelings do not darken our insightful mind." What led the Montenegrin prince to precisely this form of manifestation of noble feelings? Or - who brought?

But no political intrigue can overshadow the blatant difference in economic potentials.

The Russian Empire was then several times richer than the Japanese - but the navy of Japan surpassed the First Pacific Squadron, not only because the Russian fleet was mainly divided between the Baltic and Black Seas, but also because of a full ship repair base (not to mention shipbuilding) there were neither Port Arthur and Dalniy leased by Russia in 1898, nor even Vladivostok, which was being mastered since 1860. For the current repair, the ships returned to the Baltic, and on the way back they managed to work out a noticeable share of the overhaul resource. In the meantime, the Second Pacific Squadron was being formed in the Baltic, the blocked Liaodong Peninsula fell with the First Squadron, and even the Second and Third Squadrons, numerically almost equal to the Japanese, were numerically the fleet, were defeated in the Tsushima Strait. The book assures: Admiral Zinovy ​​Petrovich Rozhdestvensky deliberately put the ships entrusted to him in a losing position. But, in my opinion, one fatigue after a trip across three oceans was enough for a noticeable weakening of our sailors, and Rozhestvensky could not conduct full-fledged exercises on a campaign, again, due to the limited survivability of the main units. He did not have a repair base on the entire route. Even there was only one parking lot - in Madagascar, owned by France friendly at that time (there the Second Squadron waited for the Third to arrive - under the command of Nikolai Ivanovich Nebogatov; he had the shameful role to surrender to the Japanese ships still afloat after being shot off at Tsushima Island ) Russia did not have its own (or at least leased) bases: Port Arthur was the first long-term lease experience.

The situation was similar on land. The accumulation and supply of forces depended entirely on the Trans-Siberian Railway. This unique transport facility is an undoubted pride of the Russian technology, and, moreover, it was built incredibly quickly. But at that time the main line was single-track, and trains went through the Baikal by ferry, only a few cars at a time: the working movement on the Circum-Baikal road began 1904.10.01, and full-fledged operation - 1905.10.29. Therefore, at the end of the war, Russian troops in the Far Eastern theater of operations numerically caught up with the Japanese, acquiring by that time (as I noted in the article “Losing accumulation of forces. The Japanese war and today's Ukraine”) the habit of defeat.

Meanwhile, the need for a Far Eastern shipbuilding base and a high-performance railway from edge to edge of the empire was evident even a couple of decades before the war with Japan (for example, with the participation of Russia in the suppression, together with other great powers of the past, the uprisings of the “forces of harmony and justice” In China in 1899 – 1901, the main difficulty for us was the accumulation and supply of troops). And many other - even if not so noticeable - causes of weakness were also known long before this weakness (alas, objective and justly noted by both contemporaries and descendants) led to the fact that in two wars in a row the country's tension was too great and turned into attempts of particularly smart politikantropov to stir up the water and catch fish in it.

Why did they not eliminate them? After all, to build a double-track railway is not at all twice as expensive as a single-track railway: let's say, the volume of embankments and notches due to slopes depends little on the number of tracks. Yes, the ship repair plant, although undoubtedly more complicated than small port workshops, is so beneficial in its work that a port with such a plant is a source of enormous additional income. And so on the entire list of the then Russian weaknesses: the elimination of any of them required funds that were insignificant compared with the additional benefits.

Did the decision makers of that time not see this benefit? But then the criticism of them is fair and their current defense in the book under discussion is erroneous. Or maybe one of them deliberately provoked a weakening of the country - and then the book is right in everything? In a word, I want to repeat the refrain of the speech of State Duma deputy Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov 1916.11.14: “Stupidity or treason?”

Alas, there is a reason far more dangerous than stupidity with betrayal combined - poverty. The Great Empire, at least from the beginning of the 18th century, experienced an almost constant budget and trade deficit. She now and again borrowed money from her own business people (and gave them most often by transferring to them the right to collect any tax - payback, which caused the hardest abuse in collecting this tax: in the literature of the second half of the XIX century, the farmer is one of the most disgusting types ), then from foreigners. Its industrial development after the abolition of serfdom was critically dependent on foreign investment. She simply didn’t have enough money for a two-way Transsib or Far Eastern shipbuilding (and for full-fledged fortification: Port Arthur should have been strengthened much better according to the original plan, and then he could have been under siege for a couple of years. But due to poor funding, a significant part of the dominant heights in the vicinity was left without defenses and armaments, so they had to be handed over almost without a fight, and it was from them that the Japanese shot the city, the port and the ships blocked in it for a long time and without any obstacles; orablay until the failure of the further defense has lost its meaning).

The blame for this poverty largely lies with the then ruling class. Unlike the British or German nobles, the Russians invested a very small fraction of their incomes in industrial or at least trade matters - the main issue was simply squandered. Even after the abolition of serfdom, when the permanent source of income disappeared, most nobles squandered their one-time ransom without thinking about future well-being.

The reasons for such short-sightedness can be discussed for a long time. I will note the main thing: our nobles considered participation in the work of the state apparatus as their inalienable right, and therefore they firmly counted on the government salary even in the event of the complete ruin of their personal farms. Even few people think about the sources of income of the treasury even nowadays.

So, those in Russia who combined wealth and power for the most part did not care about the development of the country's economy. Therefore, it crucially depended on investments from abroad. And there, of course, first of all they invested in those industries that could supplement already existing production or replace what is already unprofitable to develop at home: the more expensive the work force, the more profitable it is to improve its skills and use it in particularly difficult cases, bringing relatively simple production where people are cheaper.

Due to the orientation towards foreign investors, the Russian economy did not develop comprehensively. I have already cited an example more than once: France willingly invested in Russian railways of a latitudinal direction, so that mobilized Russian troops quickly got to war with Germany, but we had to finish building the meridional orientation roads necessary for establishing cooperation between production complexes in different regions in Soviet times . But it is much more important that every year our machine tool industry lagged behind the main competitors and the import share of the equipment of our enterprises became more and more (despite the fact that the first support - the tool holder - for a lathe, moved by a mechanical drive along the guides and thereby ensuring accuracy machining, invented the court mechanic of Peter I Alekseevich Romanov Andrey Konstantinovich Nartov), ​​so that we could create new production only with the participation of foreign partners. Instrumentation was not developed either: for example, on warships not only in Japan, but also in World War I, gyrocompasses, rangefinders, even binoculars are imported. We successfully did steam engines ourselves, but things weren’t a problem with internal combustion engines: ours aviation flew on imported engines. Etc.

Foreign orientation is not profitable even in a purely commercial sense. You buy a product of its own production - the money for it will remain in the country, part of them will return to the treasury in the form of various taxes. And when you buy a foreign money goes irrevocably. Translated from financial language to technical, its production uses all local resources, including labor, while imports leave these resources unused, so the economy as a whole creates far less than it could. True, technical logic does not explain why it is more profitable to develop at our own expense, without expecting investment. Here we have to go back to the logic of financial: the investor is counting on profit, and if it is foreign, then the profit goes abroad again - at least partially. And this, as noted above, leaves the country without taxes, and local resources without use.

Mikhail Leonidovich Khazin pointed out: foreign investments are deliberately limited. If investors are counting on the withdrawal of part of the profits - they will invest only so much that foreign exchange earnings (in the period under consideration - also gold production) would be enough for the country to pay this profit. But only a few investors will create export-oriented production - in order to avoid too painful competition with their own enterprises. Therefore, the total volume of production created for foreign investment is obviously less than one would expect, looking only at available funds, theoretically looking for opportunities for use.

From general reasoning, let us turn to a comparative experiment set by the course of history itself. Almost simultaneously with the abolition of serfdom in the Russian Empire, two more large and rapidly developing states emerged in the world. 1865.05.10 arrested the president and members of the government of the Confederate States of America, which restored the unity of the United States (some military units fought before 1865.05.23). 1871.01.18 in the Mirror Gallery of the Palace of Versailles on the initiative of Prussia, which won France in the campaign launched by 1870.07.19, signed an agreement on the creation of the Second German Empire. Over the next four decades, the three powers developed under similar conditions. Moreover, RI was noticeably ahead of MUH and WGI in most of the indicators listed in the book. But behind them one at a time, there is not mentioned, but the total, covering all aspects of the economy at once, - the share of the world market: they grew faster there. These are the economic consequences of non-complex development.

But in wartime much more important is the cessation of many imports. So, the Russian chemical industry developed mainly by the Germans - and constantly needed many German-made reagents: who would create a competitor for their own money! It is clear that the war with the Germans paralyzed many enterprises. But even that which depended on the allies was stuck: it was vital for them than to quickly increase their own capabilities, and they took care of our production on the leftover principle. This is already enough to explain most of the disasters that befell the Russian Empire in its last war — without any conspiracy theories.

Why did MUH and WGI develop in a comprehensive, balanced way? Because they relied on their own funds, and not on foreign investment.

MUH after victory completely robbed the CGA. The well-being accumulated by several generations of planters and their slaves (and noticeably destroyed during the war, primarily as a result of the scorched earth tactics used by northerners during the breakout under the command of William Tecumseh Charles-Robertovich Sherman to the Gulf of Mexico, which divided the CA into two non-interacting units) overnight, officials and fraudsters (most often in one bottle) migrated to the pockets of officials from the north. The concept of “Carpetbegger” was included in American history: Northerners most often came with a single bag (bag) from a carpet (carpet), which could serve as a bed when spending the night in a cheap inn, and left with full wallets and beautiful checkbooks, sometimes right in the luggage cars with property confiscated from southerners. But this dashing robbery turned into, among other things, investments in thousands of new plants, working on the latest technologies at the time and able to press against British production.

The WGI on a peace treaty 1871.05.10 received from the newborn Third French Republic five billion francs (at the then exchange rate of 1451,5 tons of gold). Easy money first of all generated a wave of Grunds - the foundation (that is, the creation of joint-stock companies without distinct sources of income for the sake of earning on the initial public offering). Enough and other fraudulent schemes. But ultimately, almost all of the gold remained in the country and went to the creation of new plants. The British first invented the label “made in England” to distinguish their products of traditionally high quality from the German hack-work — but after a few years, the inscription “made in Germany” became a symbol of the same quality tradition.

The main thing is that when new production needs of MUH and VGI emerged, they most often found internal possibilities to meet these needs, and RI industrialists usually had to look for foreign partners who were able (and willing!) To supply the necessary equipment or components. This complicated the diversification of production, forced to concentrate in a few already well-developed industries. And thus it increased its dependence on foreign countries.

I suppose if, instead of stupid devouring their incomes, if the nobles were Russian, they were looking for ways to invest this money in the long run, they would get even more for eating: the hens capable of laying golden eggs should not be cut, but feed. Not to mention the lesser likelihood of revolutions caused by military defeats — because of them, our nobility ultimately not only eliminated as a class (that is, the place taken by the nobility in the social division of labor disappeared), but also largely physically destroyed.

The then experience was fully taken into account by the Bolsheviks. At the first opportunity, they refused to rely on foreign investment: the concession system, developed in the mid-1920s, was phased out in the first five-year plan (1927–32). Even Western (primarily from the SGA) loans received in the same first five-year period were repaid already in the second, and after that we received loans only to strengthen political relations or accelerate the development of individual industries. Thus, the non-aggression treaty of 1939.08.23 between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Third German Empire was concluded only after the trade agreement of 1939.08.19. Moreover, the credit line allocated by TGI for 200 million marks (at the then exchange rate of just over 42,3 tons of gold) we extinguished by the supply of raw materials and used for the purchase of samples of German military equipment for study and the latest German machine tools for the deployment of new own defense industries. Say squeeze into the tower tank The T-34 76,2 mm long-barreled gun was succeeded thanks to German boring machines capable of processing shoulder straps in the skilful Russian hands - bearing support - towers with a light diameter of 1420 mm (and a new turret with a 85 mm gun on a shoulder strap with a diameter of 1600 mm and a tank tower IS-2 with a 122 mm gun on a 1800 mm pursuit was already obtained on Lend-Lease American machines).

Unfortunately, for a quarter of a century - since the late Gorbachev era - the economic bloc of the Russian government has been staffed exclusively by people who are holy believers in the unlimited and beneficence of foreign investment. Incompleteness of development does not bother them at all: the purely financial logic underlying the current imitations of libertarian economic theory (the so-called Austrian and Chicago schools) does not at all consider production processes in general and technological chains in particular (I have already published more than once in magazine ”selected quotes from the founder of the Austrian school, Ludwig Heinrich Arturovich Edler von Mises, seemingly convincing to many accountants, but ridiculous for any production worker, because in them there is an obvious narration Logic of technological chains is left, where all links must be mutually agreed). If this unconventional economic orientation continues, the economic bloc awaits the fate of the Russian nobility. He is not sorry, but at the same time, he can lead the whole Russian Federation to the fate of the Russian Empire ...

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Berrick
    Berrick 5 September 2014 14: 37
    One us congressman said;
    "The biggest injustice on the planet is that Siberia belongs to one country!"

    I think this explains everything.
    1. Giant thought
      Giant thought 5 September 2014 14: 42
      To put things in order with investments in Russia, there must be a government of a different mode than the current liberal one.
    2. siberalt
      siberalt 5 September 2014 21: 41
      Yes, not everything is fine. The article is contextual. Not for a wide range. And this is understandable when the author gives out his own, as universally recognized and is repelled from it. Bravo Anatoly! Aerobatics! Without any irony to the author, but who else should build the Russian ideology? Conclusion: Wasserman is Russian in spirit and in conscience.
      And more about the article. Comrad, Onatole! That brevity is the sister of talent, we know. But not to the same extent! To formulate a whole paragraph in such a logical multidimensionality, and even with the original answer, is a masterpiece, without exaggeration. Bravo, and bravo again! Always considered Wasserman the pride of the people of the USSR.
  2. Balbes_I
    Balbes_I 5 September 2014 14: 37
    Well, any investments save their own money, which should be aimed at the development of nationally critical areas.
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 5 September 2014 16: 24
      THAT is in London. And so it is.
    2. max702
      max702 5 September 2014 16: 32
      You just do not understand .. The author says that our newly-born nouveau riche owners of factories, newspapers, ships NIHRENA do not invest in the country where they live in the same way as the nobility preferring to squander their income (yachts, boogati, castles, islands, chelsea, etc.) so the consumables support the means of production that they got for free and that’s all .. And it doesn’t matter who the nouveau riche minister in the government or the oil oligarch does, they all do the same thing, time goes on industries that generate income require investments for further competitiveness, and there are no (attachments)! In our country, one way to increase competitiveness is to reduce wages (this also includes a clearly underestimated ruble exchange rate). Time is running out, and looking at the terrifying decline in the educational level in the country it becomes terrible .. What will we get out of? Who will develop, implement competitively capable developments and technologies? Who are these people ? Where do they come from? I think no one will argue that the development and production of technology of the latest generations requires enormous knowledge and skills, but they are not! Why, for example, China does not have really high-tech things? It’s just that they don’t HAVE WHILE their scientific school, the USA solved this problem simply by buying up all worthy specialists all over the world. Europe is supported by a long-standing scientific and industrial school .. But what will we do? With an approach like our government there is little to rely on, there are still enough bright goals, but there are NO resources for their development in their native country! They don’t want our strengths to invest in. Here is an article about this ..
  3. Mooh
    Mooh 5 September 2014 14: 39
    Very controversial article. What was true in the 19th century in the age of globalization does not roll. Even China does not close its economy from investments. A country that refused to integrate into the global economy is doomed to stagnate and lag behind in development.
    1. Orik
      Orik 5 September 2014 15: 06
      Quote: MooH
      Very controversial article. What was true in the 19th century in the age of globalization does not roll. Even China does not close its economy from investments. A country that refused to integrate into the global economy is doomed to stagnate and lag behind in development.

      The question of the degree of integration and the ways in which it goes. The example of China is also not very good, its industry was originally created as an "assembly shop". The author is right, "unnecessary", dirty industry, requiring a lot of manual labor, is taken to poor countries, and the engineering base remains in the metropolis, it is one thing to copy, and another to create fundamentally new samples by ourselves.
      Unfortunately, the Petrine elite degenerated, its replacement was required, but this was not done and the result is characteristic, the wind of history took it to oblivion. Only ... it does not serve as an edification to anyone, incl. Today's like a democracy.
      1. Zuborez
        Zuborez 5 September 2014 15: 44
        In China, not everything is "so simple" (c).
        There are actually enterprises of foreign companies, but there are also factories that make a sticker on the products, which the customer will say (they also mold it without the knowledge of the customer).
        Plus, a lot of firms working in the domestic market (MIC), which are quite lacking industry fame)).
        And in order to copy something, you need to have a technological base. Under Stalin, plants with ready-made technology were bought for specific products. And nobody really wants to share this (and produce their competitors).
        In Moscow, with a meadow, 98% of the imported investment went into trade and entertainment. We need such investors.
        There are enough of their hucksters.

        Threat for UAVs, China is in second place after the states. Many Amer drones are shot down and Xeroxed.
    2. andj61
      andj61 5 September 2014 15: 17
      So completely abandon the investment and not worth it. Only here is to build the future of your country, relying solely on investment - this is economic idealism.
      Unfortunately, for a quarter of a century - from the late Gorbachev era - the economic block of the Russian government is staffed exclusively by people who firmly believe in the unlimited and beneficial foreign investment. The incompleteness of development does not bother them at all: the purely financial logic that underlies the current exodus of libertarian economic theory does not at all consider production processes in general and technological chains in particular

      I fully support A. Wasserman in this.
      Doubters must answer a simple question: how will we be able to manufacture military equipment, if the machines and equipment on which this equipment is manufactured will be exclusively imported? They will stop the supply of spare parts, or accessories, materials - and everything will stop, then think up a replacement. But at the beginning of the last century it happened when our factories producing explosives could not work, being oriented towards German catalysts.
      Now imagine how many jobs you can create with us by investing state money, now working for the enemy economy, in the machine tool industry! And in the construction of new refineries, in the aviation complex. This is many times more effective than taking them out of the economy and storing them abroad. Plus article!
      1. aksakal
        aksakal 5 September 2014 15: 37
        Quote: andj61
        I fully support A. Wasserman in this.
        drinks good Wasserman instead of Medvedev! And this is not a joke, but I seriously suggest it.
      2. g1v2
        g1v2 5 September 2014 15: 45
        I also support that we should try to develop our own production and limit foreign investment. Now many financiers are worried that foreign investment is declining, and when they grew, everyone was happy as children. However, they forget that the investor is essentially the owner. For example, an Amerov company will buy a controlling stake in a strategic plant and can do whatever it wants with it - it wants to close it, wants to go bankrupt or force it to produce pots instead of disadvantageous parts for the defense industry, for example. And the fact that most brands on store shelves belong to Western concerns, is it not dangerous? Another thing is that import substitution and the rejection of foreign investment are a strong blow to the financial sector and huge expenses that will come back to everyone - both producers and buyers, and the ruble exchange rate and economic indicators.
        However, we have already entered the war with the amers and the rollback will be even more expensive for us, there is nothing to do. We must endure and begin import substitution at least in the defense industry, cx and other strategic sectors. There is strong opposition from the Ministry of Finance, because all these necessary actions hit the financial sector, which means that they ruin the Ministry of Finance's indicators and empty the pocket of the state, however, like any capital investments, they will bring profit in the future and strengthen our economy as a whole.
    3. tokens2
      tokens2 5 September 2014 18: 06
      A country that refused to integrate into the global economy is doomed to stagnation and development lag.

      Integration of states is somewhat myth. Countries receive products that, in most cases, they can produce themselves. But only a narrow number of countries have breakthrough and technological industries like a closed joint-stock company. They build everyone for the sake of 1 golden billion. Conventionally, "seeds from Honduras "or" apples from Poland "is a veiled tribute.
      So you need to discard all this husk. And negotiate with leaders, collaborating only in advanced industries. Developing your own market.
      It's difficult to negotiate, yes ... But there is no other way. You just need to "expand the deck of cards up your sleeve" laughing
      And as for the elite of the Russian Empire ... it just didn’t realize that the economy is also a weapon ... and very effective.
      It is interesting to read Wassermann. Article +
    4. Wheel
      Wheel 5 September 2014 23: 14
      Quote: MooH
      Very controversial article. What was true in the 19th century in the age of globalization does not roll. Even China does not close its economy from investments. A country that refused to integrate into the global economy is doomed to stagnate and lag behind in development.

      Forget about globalization - the project was a failure.
      China is rapidly developing its domestic market.
      The Yusats are trying to bring production back home.
      In Europe, there is persistent talk about national economies.
      And yes, stagnation and a halt in development just occurred with the involvement of the former Soviet Union in the globalization, as the latter non-globalized.
  4. Same lech
    Same lech 5 September 2014 14: 40
    I did not trust BOURGEOYS from the WESTERN before I do not trust and now .... profit at any cost even on the bones of people is an integral feature of capitalism.
    1. Mooh
      Mooh 5 September 2014 14: 42
      And the bourgeois from the east is better? The same eggs side view. Socialist China is also making profit on the bones.
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 5 September 2014 14: 46
        And the bourgeois from the east is better?

        smile Horseradish radish is not sweeter.
    2. DMB-88
      DMB-88 5 September 2014 15: 02
      the absurdity of the situation lies in the fact that on the one hand, trying to attract foreign investment (whether they need it or not is another question), and on the other hand, withdrawing huge money abroad of about $ 100 billion a year, thereby supporting the economies of other countries unfriendly to us!
  5. Reasonable, 2,3
    Reasonable, 2,3 5 September 2014 14: 43
    Well, Wasserman is in his own spirit. And history, as we know, does not tolerate subjugation. Port Arthur passed the stessel (not to be confused with the admiral). And the price is known. 10 lyamov. First. walked along the 5th column. They’re constantly surrendering to us. Now, it’s just an option when we are a single whole. Not about ... to be. With respect.
  6. Altona
    Altona 5 September 2014 14: 47
    Onotole, well done ... Popularly painted everything ...
  7. 290980
    290980 5 September 2014 14: 49
    Quote: Berrik
    One us congressman said;
    "The biggest injustice on the planet is that Siberia belongs to one country!"

    I think this explains everything.

    Madeleine Albright said this, I personally heard it, but this statement is everywhere given as a fake.
    CONTROL 5 September 2014 14: 59
    to refuse Russia foreign investment means hopelessly lag behind in development! axiom, however ...

    that's who, how and under what conditions to allow investing in Russia - the question!
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 5 September 2014 16: 19
      to refuse Russia foreign investment means hopelessly lag behind in development! axiom, however ...

      And will foreign investments definitely go to the development of the sixth technological mode? And the fifth? And the fourth? What, only the third? Well then, an axiom! However...
  9. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 5 September 2014 15: 03
    Investments in key industries must be domestic. Wasserman, as always, respect. Vision to the root. Globalization is a monster that devours the countries and peoples who resist it, not economically, but through bombing and color revolutions.
  10. boris697
    boris697 5 September 2014 15: 11
    While everything is tied to the dollar, investments will be beneficial to those who print and invest them - it’s obvious. Pouring in papers get control over what is created on them. It's the same elementary. And no matter what production or country they pour in. As long as there is no currency peg to any real equivalent or resource, this crap will not stop.
  11. Strashila
    Strashila 5 September 2014 15: 31
    "The book contains extensive and very impressive statistics of the success of Russian industry in the last half century of the empire's existence - since the abolition of serfdom in 1861.03.03 (hereinafter, all dates according to the Gregorian calendar). Almost all key indicators of its economy grew at the highest rate in the world. An obvious conclusion follows from this: the country was healthy, successful, there were no fundamental internal causes of defeats. So, all the fault lies with the internal intriguers and their external partners. "... the question is not the speed of development ... but where did the funds received in as a result of this development and how they were used ... the situation after a hundred years is exactly the same ... they bought half of Europe ... but to the point ... life is a continuous show ... and what they did for the country.
    What then, now.
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. Former tank crew
    Former tank crew 5 September 2014 15: 41
    They won’t say anything, fact!
    1. 290980
      290980 6 September 2014 01: 16
      Quote: Former Tanker
      They won’t say anything, fact!

      and his trunk is serious laughing , MP5, but the trunk is unrealistically long, with such sitting on the couch you won’t get much. belay
  15. 3vs
    3vs 5 September 2014 15: 42
    Thanks to Anatoly for the article.

    It seems that this liberalism stretches from tsarist Russia.
    Maybe all the same, the GDP will begin to listen to clever peasants, such as
    Sergey Glazyev, Mikhail Khazin.
    Instead of Peskov, President Wasserman should be thrown!
    Natalia is a walking encyclopedia, tell me if that.
  16. Grbear
    Grbear 5 September 2014 15: 56
    Wasserman is always interesting to read. But his "groaning" about the absence of patriotic capitalists in Russia is not solid. Everyone knows about 300% and the capitalist's own mother, and this is an international phenomenon.
    What is needed is not Medvedev’s 4 years of blueprints, but a clear state plan for critical industries, the implementation of which is mandatory for all forms of ownership (regulation through state orders) and personal responsibility (for both the official and the businessman).

    And tax regulation. Built, it works as it should - get a benefit. Invested in production - get it. Simple arithmetic - operating enterprises contribute about 50% of wages to the treasury, and 32% from incomes, but they still need to be found. He withdrew money abroad - he said to the cause, but there is no case - answer with property and do not deceive, henceforth, the Motherland. I do not like Motherland - get the value of the property at the purchase prices (SB indexes bully ) and the station and somewhere.
    There are many interesting things, but this requires a kick. And I hope that the EU will adopt the third package of sanctions that will untie P's hands. It's time to see what Russia is in business. hi
  17. atos_kin
    atos_kin 5 September 2014 19: 48
    If this unconventional economic orientation continues, the fate of the Russian nobility awaits the economic bloc. He is not sorry, but at the same time he can lead the whole Russian Federation to the fate of the Russian Empire ...
    Vivid confirmation of the conclusions of A. Wasserman is the situation in the second-hand Ukraine. To paraphrase it a bit: low traditional orientation combined with the "non-traditional economic orientation" of all "nation-leaders", since 1991, has led to an "end" in the economy and the Siberian fur-bearing animal in statehood.
  18. LCA
    LCA 5 September 2014 21: 34
    The factology presented by A. Wasserman is convincing, but why he does not draw the necessary conclusions:

    The way out of the global systemic crisis in society is not in revolutions, wars or pogroms of certain groups, which will be replaced by other groups immediately and inevitably in the current algorithm, but in a change in the concept of management

    For thousands of years, the process of globalization has been going on in the world arena - now there is only an emerging global culture, which will unite all of humanity in a historical perspective. The economic component of globalization throughout history has dominated other aspects and is a process of integrating productive forces (the population of different regions of the planet and their resources) into a single system of humanity ...; and this is an objective process (i.e. it does not depend on the desire of people whether they understand it or not).

    Globalization - the process in the history of mankind is inevitable - objective, but it has been controlled for a long time by subjective arbitrariness.

    In essence, the issue of managing the course of globalization is a twofold question:

    - Its first aspect is goal-setting in relation to the completion of globalization (the vector of goals in managing globalization sets a certain character of culture in which all of humanity should unite over time).
    - His second aspect is a conceptual one that defines the ways and means of achieving the intended goals.

    The concept of globalization - the concept of managing the global historical process.

    So, for now, the management of globalization is arbitrarily immoral - according to the biblical satanic concept.

    And the merit of Russia (Russian civilization) lies in the fact that for the first time in the world we proposed the management of globalization according to moral arbitrariness, and according to God - BER (concepts of public safety).

    The problem of inefficient management in the USSR was in the inadequate real life of Marxism (Marxism), and especially its economic component.

    I.V. Stalin in 1952 wrote the work "Economic problems of socialism in the USSR, where he said:
    “I think that our economists must put an end to this discrepancy between the old concepts and the new state of affairs in our socialist country, replacing the old concepts with new ones corresponding to the new situation. We could tolerate this discrepancy until a certain time, but now the time has come when we must finally eliminate this discrepancy ... ”
  19. ivanfly
    ivanfly 5 September 2014 21: 51
    I hope, even during our lifetime, the ruble will become gold. as soon as petrodollar turns to dust, energy transactions will be concluded in the currency of the manufacturer. There will be Europe on the other side of the counter, standing in line with its claims for the complaint book ..