Khazin economic crisis. Still to come
The fact is that the rules of today's economy took shape during the introduction of money in the form of round pieces made of gold alloy, which happened somewhere in the 6th century BC in the kingdom of Lydia. Then a certain amount of gold was placed in each, which predetermined lifespan the entire economic model based on which humanity began to consider gold.
If there is no supply of new gold, then there is nothing to make new ones from. As we see, the collapse of the existing economic model was inherent in it from the very beginning, since today all the rich deposits of gold have already been developed.
After all, from a certain volume of gold it was possible to mint only strictly limited quantity coins, since the gold content of the first coin set a standard that has become a tradition. That's why people began to think: you have exactly as much money as you get by dividing the available gold by the nominal weight of gold contained in the first coin. After all, so many full-fledged coins can be made from this volume of gold.
Since the volume of mined gold is still limited, there is no way to produce enough money (in the sense of gold coins) to service the trade turnover, which has increased many times over. Paper has long been used as a material for carrying money, and by the middle of the 20th century, gold coins were withdrawn from circulation, as state banks of all countries switched to paper banknotes. Replacing gold with paper, in addition to reducing the cost of production monetary units, finally allowed us to print as much money as the economy needed. But the gold that now lies in bank vaults has again become what it always was - a rare yellow metal.
It took several “world crises”, 2 world wars for everyone to understand that it was necessary to abandon the gold standard, which began with the creation of the Bretton Woods system, when gold was replaced by the dollar, and in 1971 there was a complete abandonment of gold as money .
However, even today many live in the illusion that they can mint as many gold coins as they want with the same gold content as in the first coin - and start the game anew, although even the abandonment of gold and the transition of states to paper money, which can be printed without restrictions - showed that today it is no longer about money, but the whole model needs to be changed.
It turned out that you can only escape once, but you cannot break the patterns. Those rules of the game of money that developed during the invention of gold coins are now returning humanity to the level of development that it should have been without the “era of growth” that was capitalism. And judging by everything, where the regression may stop for a while will be the level of the first half of the 20th century. GLOBAL FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRISISAttention!, as well as online, have been transferred to the page. This page is a summary for the category World crisis. to go to sections and to the theme of the crisis you will find after a short introduction. For further growth, we need to abandon the old rules of the game and change the entire economic model, and not look for new types of money. No more possibilities encourage the old model, since the negative consequences of stimulating economic growth outweigh all the benefits. For the emergence of new demand and, accordingly, a new round of scientific and technological progress - somewhere you need to create a system of division of labor that exceeds the current level, but neither the elites (politicians) nor the people living in old ideas about nation states are ready for THIS.
CAUSES OF THE WORLD ECONOMIC CRISISA shortage of money paralyzes production, which is not designed to decrease. Manufacturers, in the fight for impoverished customers, are forced to reduce the cost of goods, which, coupled with a shortage of money, generates deflation in the form of an increase in the price of consumer money. In the end, a series of bankruptcies of enterprises begins, as unnecessary production capacity. Bankruptcies immediately cause difficulties in the banking sector, dragging the world economy and the financial sector into a contraction spiral. Well-established economic ties are collapsing, causing a shortage of goods in the domestic markets of countries, which states are trying to compensate for by creating import-substituting industries.
The narrowing of the entire global system of division of labor will inevitably lead to the elimination of individual countries, which will try to leave their own borders in order to create a system from a group of countries. Most likely, there will be no time for economic gain - the state will simply solve security issues of providing its citizens with vital products. The world will go into a rut economic wars, the main instrument of which will be a reduction in the value of national currencies, but the result of which will be a catastrophic decline in living standards - and first of all - in developing countries Oh. It is obvious that people (in the sense of the elites of countries) will somehow fight the complete destruction of the system - at least through the creation of blocs or economic unions of countries, uniting economies into a single economic complex. However, using the example European Union, we see how difficult it is to regulate a common joint economy, since it affects the interests of national elites. On the one hand, the EU creates conditions for the growth of the common European economy, but on the other hand, globalization presupposes the loss of sovereignty by the governments of individual countries. The contours of the future society are only outlined, but the way out of the crisis lies in the creation of a new formation. A new one is needed - probably uniting billions of people together, so that it is in it that a division of labor can be created, higher than today. How much more time will pass - maybe centuries, when they will begin to understand that the form of management of society - in the form - only holds back progress. The success of the United Europe showed the right direction - the creation of a United Earth, but the impulse given by capitalism was not enough to complete the experiment.
The existing economic model initially assumed non-stop growth of the system to include people and territories, but the impetus came with the invention of a special form of division of labor that combined the usual deepening division of labor into technological operations with the division of labor in management, known today as “the firm.” This happened in Europe only thanks to the unique circumstances associated with the unformed territorial empire, since, by inheritance from the Roman Empire, two verticals of power were formed in Europe - the dominant Catholic one, and the other secular, subordinate to the first church. The struggle of these power verticals contributed to the liberation of money from connections with power, and in the era of rebellion against the tenets of Catholicism, Protestant ethics appeared in Northern Europe, allowing interest on loans.
Over the course of several decades of constant growth in the world economy, the elites of most countries adopted liberal ideas, and replaced serious economic science with a cloud of contradictory theories called Economics, theories of micro and macroeconomics that are in no way related to each other. This mix from the tangled heterogeneous economic theories he explained to liberals why everything is so good in the rich countries of capitalism. However, the rich only became richer, and the poor did not become rich, and only a general rise smoothed out the inconsistencies. Today everything is changing in the world, because life without regard to Likho ended. Humanity has no chance to overcome the crisis, and to mitigate the consequences of the compression of the division of labor system, decisive action is needed, but liberal politicians unable to take responsibility on themselves, since the slogan “Freedom from all responsibility” is written on their flags.
Even the collapse of the financial sector in many countries will not be able to correct the situation in the real sector of the economy, where maintaining the standard of living requires all efforts to maintain the existing global division of labor. The more people in the system, the greater the volume of production and consumption that can be maintained, since goods will be affordable. While the national elites are poorly aware of this, an example is the increase in interest rates by the US Federal Reserve, which, according to the authors, should contribute to the return of dollars to their homeland, which at the same time bleeds all world trade.
The trouble is that the financial authorities of the leading capitalist countries continue to adhere to the recipes of bourgeois political economy (economics), which can cause sudden collapse the entire system. Most likely, hopes for a more or less uniform contraction of the system will not come true, since the national elites do not understand the nature of the real crisis, which, combined with their selfishness, will lead to a sharp acceleration of the destruction of the world economy. IN unified system and we need to act together. If Russia and other oil producing countries did not receive a certain amount of dollars due to a sharp drop in oil prices, then they reduced demand for products, primarily from China, which in China itself forces a reduction in the production of goods, which leads to a decrease in the need for oil, causing a further decrease in oil prices. Actually, this happens not only with oil, but with all types of raw materials. Thus, the actions of Saudi Arabia, which collapsed the oil market, obviously with the consent of the United States, accelerated the spiral of contraction of the world economy, but the “sinking” economies of developing raw material countries will soon drag the entire world economy with them to the bottom. The question of the possibility of starting wars is often raised, recalling previous experience in overcoming crises. Then it is not clear who the US elite, if it wants to start a world war, will consider as the next world leaders? since today the USA is the undisputed center of the system. What kind of peak is the United States still going to climb? if they are the “top” of the current world economy. It is quite crazy to oppose the center to the rest of the system, unless there is a desire to return the world to the Middle Ages.
Whether someone likes it or not, today - THE WORLD IS ONE V economically, at the same time, we see a lack of political agreement among national elites. The idea of creating a world over national currency is being seen more and more clearly, but it was rejected precisely by the US elite. Actually, the search for a new economic model will begin only after the fall in living standards affects the elite itself, when popular discontent raises the question of not just changing elites, but changing the principle of their formation. Revolutions are possible, but they cannot solve the problem until the elites and anti-elites themselves understand that only by changing their essence can they somehow survive as a privileged part of society. And replacing one elite with another will change little. Great Economic CrisisToday came the one that no bourgeois economist can even name. The liberal elites have already forgotten about its existence and “blowed into the ears” of the whole world that under their control there would never be a crisis. However, the longer people who trust economic authorities are deceived, the more destructive the storm that gathers strength in financial bubbles will be. The world economy managed to survive the wave of the 2008 crisis, but since then the protective mechanisms have become so tense that they can break through anywhere.
The end of political economy
The fact is that economics was created to counter Marxist political economy, which studied the laws of capitalism to prove its finitude. Economicism was accepted in leading Western countries as mainstream economic theory of capitalism only because of his adherence to the postulate of the “eternity of capitalism.” believer in the eternity of capitalism- cannot not only talk about his death, but even think about it. However, no one canceled the idea that THERE IS NOTHING MORE PRACTICAL THAN A GOOD THEORY...
Liberal economists simply cannot say out loud that systemic economic crisis not over. Then they will simply be driven away from everywhere as healers deceiving the people with words about the absence of a crisis. Therefore, both the Russian government and the financial authorities, which consist of economists, constantly pronounce like a spell: financial crisis has ended, the economic recovery is steeper than before, everything is fine with us, etc. However, the solidarity of the Russian elite with the world elite will not allow it to move away from the postulates of liberalism, so a way out of the crisis will be sought in the bosom of outdated political economic theories, perhaps even in Marxism. Therefore, which for many reasons could only appear in Russia, there will still be not in demand for a long time power elite.NEOCONOMICS has long exhausted itself - it no longer provides answers to problems modern economy, A Economics has no structure at all, since it is a collection - a mix - of contradictory hypotheses. However, today we can safely say that in place of orthodox theories, the main economic theory modernity has arrived. FOR NEW TIMES - NEW THEORY! The page is a summary for the category World economic crisis and has a permalink: http://site/page/ekonomicheskij-krizis Below you will find the headlines of the main articles. | Neoeconomics forecast for Russia Oddly enough, real global crisis provides Russia with an opportunity hold place as the leading country in the world. The global system of economic relations will inevitably collapse due to the crisis. Individual countries, like penguins, will scatter to their own corners. Only a country offering global peace can bring them back together. above national idea, around which like around cursor focus other nations will gather. Russia has experience in building socialism, which we can transfer to other countries, since we “tried it on” in the USSR. However, these are just wishes, since the modern elite of Russia is hardly capable even realize the opportunity and begin the changes of social reconstruction. At the same time it is necessary debunk the successes of Tsarist Russia, which, unlike the USSR, had no basis for becoming a strong economic power. |
Today's Russia falls into the category of middle-income countries only thanks to industrialization in the USSR carried out by the Bolsheviks under the leadership of Stalin. The USSR probably made the last possible breakthrough in history in creating its own technological zone. It is the technological groundwork in the nuclear industry and space sector, coupled with advanced developments in military technology, that makes it possible not to consider our country exclusively a raw material appendage of developed economies.
20.11.2008 12:47 26745
The electronic publication Utro.ru talks about what the world and Russia should expect in the context of the growing global economic crisis with the famous economist who accurately predicted the 1998 default, former economic adviser to Boris Yeltsin, president of the expert consulting company Neokon, Mikhail KHAZIN .
Do you agree that the main culprit of the economic crisis is the United States?
To be precise, the United States is not the only one to blame. There is a global financial system. In the 1980s, when the foundations of the current crisis were laid, this system occupied a third of the world. And she is to blame for the crisis. Of course, the basis of this system is the USA, the base currency is U.S. $, and the main institutions are American investment banks, American Insurance companies etc. That is, this formulation makes sense, although it must be used carefully. It should be taken into account that the very first crisis, the response to which was the development of policies that led to the current state of affairs, was all the 70s. If you look at the average salary of an American worker, (in relative terms) it peaked in 1968-1971. After that, wages only fell. And the response to the crisis of the 70s, let me remind you, was a whole series of events. 1971 - default in the USA, refusal of gold backing of the dollar; 1973 - oil crisis, 1975-76 - wild decline with stagflation. The response to this crisis was the policy of Paul Walker (Alan Greenspan's predecessor as head of the Federal Reserve System - “Y”) and the administration of President Carter. There is reason to believe that this policy was prepared for Carter's second term. However, Carter lost, Reagan became president, which is why this policy was called “Reaganomics.”
More political economists of the 19th century. have deduced the global law of capitalism: it lies in the fact that the efficiency of capital is falling all the time. Why? Because the capitalist's job is to underpay the worker. As a result, the rate of capital accumulation always exceeds the rate of replacement of labor power, that is, compensation for labor. And labor is the main source of demand, as a result, demand lags behind the supply of goods.
Does the system itself generate a decrease in demand?
Yes, regarding the proposal. Absolutely it can grow, but relatively it falls. And this problem was solved in different ways. They solved it in classical capitalism through a crisis of overproduction, destroying excess goods. Then, due to the export of capital to yet undeveloped territories, the corresponding policy was called “imperialism”. And the third way is war. First World War- this is a war for markets for the export of capital. Since all the problems posed were not solved during the First World War, it repeated itself in the form of the Second World War. And after that it became clear that it was no longer possible for capitalism to continue periodically crises of overproduction, because socialism was winning. They desperately needed to create a production system in which there would be no more crises, like in 1929. For this purpose, the Bretton Woods system was created, which in fact was a tool for institutionalizing the export of capital. It included an international bank, otherwise known as the IMF, and a development agency, for some reason called the World Bank. At the same time, a system was invented that was called GATT, and from the early 90s - WTO. Its task was not to allow small countries to close their markets so that they could not compete with the world system of capitalism through their development. And all this had to happen in dollars, for a completely trivial reason: because by the end of World War II, more than 50% of the world economy was the US economy. And this system existed successfully until the early 1970s. When it became clear that there was nowhere else to export capital, the system of socialism was closed. India and China at that time were countries with subsistence economies.
They simply could not consume it all...
Yes, that's absolutely right. Accordingly, an acute crisis of falling capital efficiency began. That is, the crisis of the 70s was a crisis of falling capital efficiency. Let us note that an absolutely similar situation existed in the USSR. The USSR, having sharply expanded its markets after World War II, made a technological breakthrough. This happened sometime before the mid-1960s. And there was simply nowhere to expand further.
So the idea that Paul Walker came up with was this. Since the United States can no longer export capital with the same efficiency and cannot stop issuing because it needs to stimulate development in the military-industrial complex, it was decided not to reduce emissions, but to increase them. At the same time, it was aimed not only at banks and the development of the military-industrial complex, but also at supporting aggregate demand. So, if 1981-1983 This is, first of all, a program for the development of government demand (the “star wars” program), then since 1984 it has been supporting the aggregate demand of households. As a result, since 1984, the United States has seen a rapid increase in total household debt.
That is, the build-up of that huge debt began precisely in the household sector?
Absolutely right. But at the first stage, the growth of debts was compensated by new loans, and in the end we came to what we came to. In recent years, the growth rate of household debt has reached 8-10% per year, while the economy has never risen above 4%. And in the end, we came to a situation that can roughly be called an acute structural crisis. What it is? There is the concept of “real disposable income of the population” - this is what the population receives as wages and income from previously placed savings. There is aggregate demand, which theoretically, at long-term averages, should be equal to actual disposable income. If for many years your expenses exceed the actual disposable income of the population, then additional capacity is created to cover these expenses. But, since these are all loans, you are actually eating up your future expenses. As a result, a situation has arisen in which there is a piece of the US economy that exists only due to emissions. We calculated this piece in 2001 by estimating the US inter-industry balance, according to the 1998 balance sheet, that is, already quite old. And the resulting figure is that in America 10-12% of the economy exists only due to net emissions. Taking into account the multiplier, which is usually 2-2.5, this figure already reaches 25%, i.e., a quarter of the American economy at the beginning of the 2000s. could exist only under emission demand.
But then there would have been crazy inflation.
She was. But! The Americans managed their economy very well and very competently channeled this inflation into economic sectors. This inflation did not occur either in the consumer or industrial sectors (well, almost not), but it did occur in the financial sector. This is the so-called financial bubbles. The first financial bubble burst in 1987 in the stock market. Then there was the recession of 1991, then, accordingly, already 2000.
The summer of 2007 was a critical moment for the United States. The real estate bubble was so inflated that it became clear that it was about to burst. This could not be allowed, since the discrepancies between the actual disposable income of the population and the volume of consumption were so great that it was possible to get a new Great Depression. For this reason, the United States began restructuring it in August 2007, in a dead market (since everyone was on vacation). The restructuring was, dare I say it, brilliant - they did not lower the real estate market by more than 4% per month. They acted very slowly.
Are you saying that the American real estate market was brought down by influence “from above”?
They just supported him so much that he didn’t go down too quickly. But the consequence of their holding down the real estate market was that inflation seeped into both the industrial and consumer sectors. As a result, its growth rate has increased significantly. Official statistics hide the true numbers. If we calculate inflation taking into account all prices, we will get about 15%, if we take into account all kinds of economic indices and other influencing parameters - already all 17 percent.
And when inflation began, it became clear that the worst thing was happening - because of inflation, the very aggregate demand that they were subsidizing began to fall. Which was the basis of all this growth. If you have consumer inflation at 12-13% by the end of the year, this means that US GDP will fall by 5-7%. This is already severe depression. To understand what the total drop will be, you need to look at subsidized consumption. This works out to about $2.5 trillion a year in direct subsidies. Taking into account the multiplier of 2, we get about $5 trillion - this, even according to the most optimistic estimates, is more than a third of the entire American economy. That is, the share of that part of the American economy that will absolutely disappear as a result of the crisis is about a third. This is a severe crisis comparable to the Great Depression. During the Great Depression, consumption in the United States fell by almost half, and real GDP fell by 30 percent. Here, as I already said, real GDP will fall by at least 30%, and the standard of living will definitely fall by half, and maybe more. That is, this is a total catastrophe for the entire socio-political system of the United States.
Where it leads?
The USA is a state that produces a total of 20% of world GDP, and consumes significantly more - up to 40% at parity purchasing power. Just imagine that global consumption will fall by 20 percent in three years. This will be a total crisis, a Great Depression on a global scale. Oil prices will fall greatly. I think $20-25 per barrel would be considered very good. Prices for metals and other raw materials will also fall. And all this could have been safely predicted back in the early 2000s.
How long will the current acute phase last and what will happen next?
There are two extreme options. Option one: the emission will be stopped with an iron hand, for example, Obama will do this as soon as he takes office. He will nationalize the Federal Reserve System with its emission function, etc. Of course, after such games they will kill him. And he will not be the first US president to be killed for trying to eliminate private central bank. For this they killed McKinley, Lincoln and some other presidents. If emissions stop, the decline of this very third of the economy that I spoke about will occur within 2-3 months.
What about the second scenario?
I don’t think that the American president will take such a desperate step. And then it remains to stimulate and compensate for the declining demand through emissions. Then the collapse of a third of the American economy will take not 2-3 months, but 2.5-3 years.
At the same time, by varying the emission, the situation can theoretically be brought to intermediate temporary states. For example, if you purposefully accelerate inflation by adopting some next “Paulson plan” to support the household. In this case, it will be possible to reduce the economy by a third, for example, in a year and a half. True, one must understand that no normal economy can calmly survive the loss of a third.
That is, it should shrink?
It should shrink, plus it should take some more time to rebuild it. The structure of the US economy needs to change dramatically. And this will also take time, and all this time we will observe a decline, the classic example of which is the Great Depression. This is the picture we have in the USA.
What awaits other regions of the world?
Let's start with Latin America. In the XIX - early XX centuries. this region played a role for the United States that China plays today. Production with a high share of low-paid labor was transferred there, primarily Agriculture. As a result, the structure of Latin American society turned out to be quite specific. There was a fairly large number of poor people, as well as a number of oligarchs - those who had a percentage of the business of “selling” cheap labor to the United States. And since they had enormous incomes, a huge layer arose in these countries to serve the oligarchs. Not only servants in the most literal sense, but also cultural figures, architects, artists, army officers, etc. It all ended in the 1980s, when the United States found China for itself and stopped investing in Latin America. As a result, local Latin American oligarchs found themselves in a difficult situation. Since the huge American demand has disappeared, the standard of living of a large part of the population has fallen significantly below the subsistence level. There was a real danger of communist uprisings. And that same middle level, those same officers and professors, began to take power into their own hands and nationalize oligarchic enterprises in order to better redistribute their income. But it was not quite a socialist revolution. Its goal was to redistribute the excess income of the oligarchs while maintaining existing structure society. However, it is unlikely that it will be possible to restore it in the form in which they wanted it in the 80s, and the new leaders of Latin America will have to go much further than they initially thought.
Next, Europe. Until recently, Europe thought a lot about itself. But we must understand that the European Union with all its bureaucracy, with all its social programs exists through contributions to the EU budget from four main countries: Germany, France, Italy, and Great Britain. Question: where do they get the money? Why, for example, do not Bulgaria or Poland have them? Answer: for a very simple reason - these are the four countries that export goods with a high share of added value to the United States. In a situation where demand for their goods is falling in the United States, Americans are gradually beginning to turn off the tap. And Europe began to understand its dependence on the United States. Why are Germany or France categorically against the creation of a single pool of support for the financial system? Yes, because if such a single pool is created, then Malta, Romania and Bulgaria will have more votes. They understand perfectly well: whoever pays calls the tune. And Germany, England, Italy and France pay. And now, in difficult times, they do not want to drag others down. In a sense, this is the first signal for the collapse of the European Union. Whether they will fall apart or not – we won’t guess from the tea leaves, but in economic terms the prospects for the European Union are very, very gloomy.
What awaits China, India and Russia?
The agrarian-industrial transition has not yet been completed in China and India. A certain number of people are recruited there, they are trained and immediately transferred to a standard of living that meets European standards. Of course, it is not the same as in Europe or the USA, but the standards of consumption are almost the same. And when demand from the United States suddenly disappears, the question arises: what to do with these people who worked to provide it? In India there are approximately 200 million, in China - three hundred. They have already felt a taste of normal life, many have a car, an apartment with separate rooms, and so on. And then they are told: as we refocus on domestic demand, your lifestyle must change. That is, if before you had a margin of one hundred dollars, now it will be three, and for this reason the three of you will live in one room, and in the village. I don’t know what will happen in India as a result of this, but in China, fortunately for this country, they know how to solve such problems. For China, eliminating 15% of its own population as a social force is a standard task that they have already solved many times in history. It will be explained, for example, that due to falling demand, half of the industrial workers must move to the villages. Pay for the first or second, the first stays, the second goes to the village. Dot. By the way, I do not rule out that they will begin to “export” these people outside of China. They will say: guys, go to California, Australia, Russia, settle there, and then, in a few years, we will call you and ask how you are doing there and how you can help China.
That leaves Russia.
In Russia everything is very bad, but for a completely different reason. The whole world has lived on excess money all this time. It was possible to get a loan for any project that could someday make a profit. There was a lot of money, but the efficiency of capital was falling, so if someone came up with something interesting, they immediately gave him money. In our country the situation was exactly the opposite. Since the 1990s The policy of the Ministry of Finance led to the fact that Russian enterprises could not receive a cheap loan. As a result, the share of credit in relation to GDP in our country by 1998 fell to 5-8 percent. Then, while Gerashchenko was in the Central Bank (from late 1998 to 2003), the share of credit in relation to GDP increased to 40 percent. Due to this we had a quick the economic growth. After Ignatiev’s arrival, since 2004, the share of the loan-to-GDP ratio did not grow, but continued to remain at the same 40 percent. Only about half of these loans, or even more, were issued foreign banks. At the same time, foreign loans were not used to support Russian production, but mainly to support the purchase of imported products by Russian citizens and enterprises. As a result, the share of imports in the economy grew rapidly, and this was all compensated by the redistribution of oil money. As a result, the economy became increasingly dependent on oil. And now our current foreign trade deficit is negative.
In general, since oil prices will fall, this means that we will have a very difficult time in the spring.
How do you assess the results of the G20 meeting in Washington? Is it possible to talk about at least some step towards overcoming the crisis together?
Let's make a medical analogy. The summit was a consultation with a sick person - the global economy. What is the main task of the council? Make the correct diagnosis. Is there a diagnosis in the final document of the summit? He's gone. This means that all observations and proposed (tactical) measures can, in fact, be harmful, and not at all beneficial. In terms of content, the summit was a complete failure. But it has two important consequences. One is tactical. The United States ensured that the declaration spoke of its commitment to free trade and open markets. Which means that for at least a year they will receive world markets as a source of export of their issued dollars to improve the standard of living of their population and support their economy. The second is political. The very fact of holding such a summit shows that the United States is no longer able to monopolize the rules of the game for the world. And if not today, then tomorrow new players will appear on the world economic arena. And it would be desirable for Russia to be among them.
Interviewed by Maxim LEGUENKO
From the RG dossier
Khazin Mikhail Leonidovich
Born in 1962. Studied at Yaroslavl State University and Moscow State University, majoring in mathematics. In 1984-1991 worked in the system of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1993-1994. - in the Work Center economic reforms under the government of the Russian Federation, in 1995-1997. - head of department credit policy Ministry of Economy of Russia, in 1997-1998. - Deputy Head of the Economic Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation. In 1998, he left the civil service. Today he is the president of the expert consulting company Neokon. Author of the acclaimed book "The Decline of the Dollar Empire and the End of Pax Americana."
It was Khazin who laid the foundations of global crisisology in Russia. Suffice it to recall a number of his articles in 2006 and the conclusion of November 27, 2007: “The collapse of the global financial system: only a few days left.”
Crisis by order?
RG: The American economist Lester Thurow, who back in the 70s wrote that the United States had become dependent on China, and this would destroy them, is vying for the laurels of “crisis predictor.” What do you think of Thurow's ideas?
Mikhail Khazin/ Something needs to be clarified here. The main reason for the current crisis is the so-called “Reaganomics,” that is, the policy of stimulating final demand in the United States, both public and private. The export of production from the United States to China was a response to the emerging difficulties in the American economy, and for this reason could not in any way serve as a cause of the crisis.
As for me and my colleagues... We understood that the collapse of the United States was possible back in 1997, but then, due to the specifics of the civil service in which I was located, I could not insist on this. And our first article, published in July 2000 in Expert magazine, was called “Will the USA Achieve the Apocalypse?” The question mark was removed only in 2001, after we undertook a study of the US inter-industry balance, when the scale of the imbalances became clear.
RG: So you already started sounding the alarm in 2001, claiming that a crisis was inevitable?
Khazin: Exactly. But they didn’t listen to us.
RG: What can you say about the opinion that in fact the crisis was orchestrated by the Americans themselves in order to “save the world” on favorable terms for themselves, as they did after World War II (“Marshall Plan”)?
Khazin: As Stanislavsky used to say to his friend Nemirovich-Danchenko: “I don’t believe it!” The economic and socio-political consequences for them are too strong. But the fact that as soon as they realized that the crisis could not be avoided, they began to use it as much as possible for their own benefit - yes, of course, I believe.
RG: That is, the Americans will take care of themselves - at least in terms of overcoming their own crisis?
Khazin: More likely. And as President Medvedev correctly noted in his recent message, they will emerge from the crisis, despite the problems caused by this crisis in many other countries.
Why is the dollar so omnipotent?
RG: Stalin tried to untie world currencies from the dollar in the early 1950s. But they didn’t untie me. Why? And why didn’t Russia tie the ruble, for example, to the yuan?
Khazin: Yes, in the last years of Stalin’s rule the ruble was not pegged to the dollar. As for the “decoupling,” back in 1944, when the Bretton Woods agreements were concluded, tying all capitalist currencies to the dollar, and it, in turn, to gold, the US economy accounted for more than 50 percent of the world’s. But now production is only 20 percent. But in terms of consumption - 40 percent. And how will you untie your currency if it is in the USA that you sell a significant part of the products you produce and actually live on it? China, Japan, and the European Union today rely on exports to the United States. How are you going to cancel it? Yes, it would be nice to do this, but how?
RG: Isn’t it possible to enter into foreign trade national or other currencies?
Khazin: This is quite difficult in the current conditions. First of all, because world trade is still heavily dollarized. And other money should be, let’s say, filled with goods, services and, therefore, endowed with popularity. Only then will they be able to compete with the dollar.
RG: So it won't work quickly?
Khazin: Hardly. Because this requires innovative content and rapid innovative development of the economy. That is, what is needed is not a raw materials, but an industrial vector of development, including export development. Then the ruble will become much more reliable than the “raw materials” ruble.
RG: Ideas for a new world economic order have been floating around in minds since the 50s, and they were especially popular in the Third World. Maybe it's time to implement these ideas? So the Russian President is talking about a new economic world order...
Khazin: Well, it’s one thing to talk, and another thing to actually do. Third World countries actually maneuvered between the two superpowers - and sometimes quite successfully. They had absolutely no intention of destroying one of them, thereby depriving themselves of such a wonderful maneuver. Yes, in 1971, the United States was forced to admit its default - they abandoned the gold backing of the dollar, but still, the so-called “Jamaican” system that replaced the “pure” Bretton Woods put the dollar at the forefront - precisely because it The dollar was built, and the entire system of world finance still stands today.
RG: Is the dollar permanent?
Khazin: The dollar performs two functions at once: it is both a world reserve and a trade currency, a single measure of value, after all. On the other hand, it is the national currency of the United States. And as long as the United States accounted for 50 percent of the world economy, there were few contradictions between these functions. And now they have become dominant. The US prints the dollar to improve its domestic economic situation, but at the same time weakens it as a world currency. That is why there are problems in many countries where the dollar is influential. And if the United States had “held” it as a world currency, then the crisis there would have been significantly stronger (and would have begun a long time ago). This is the root of the problem.
When did Russia slow down?
RG: Does this mean that the dollar and the petrodollar are closely interconnected? But at what point did Russia begin to “slow down,” that is, to use its oil windfalls irrationally? And why?
Khazin: Yes from the very beginning! This money practically did not reach the real sector - in particular, into innovation processes, the development of new technologies, personnel training, etc. Essentially, the money “dissolved” earlier. And it couldn’t be otherwise, because these issues are now often decided by financiers, many of whom, in principle, do not understand how an enterprise works. Note that this is a worldwide problem, with the possible exception of China. It’s just that this is becoming more and more apparent in our country and started earlier. So, in my opinion, oil money did not benefit us for future use - yes, it allowed us, mainly, to increase the consumption of imports, especially food. And now, after a sharp drop in oil prices, the “breaking” of this situation will begin. However, how can long-term industrial projects be planned when their financing actually depends on “petrodollars” in the first place, with such significant differences in oil prices?
RG: But then, how much will Russia’s budget, together with all its reserves, be enough if oil and gas prices in the world continue to fall?
Khazin: There are different estimates. The most pessimistic - that even before the New Year may not be enough. Optimistic - that it will be enough, and for a long time. Much here, again, depends on world prices for energy raw materials and monetary policy. But I don't think oil prices will quickly recover their previous heights. First of all, because cheap oil is profitable and needed by the United States, the European Union, and Japan, that is, the main “points” of the world economy and financial system. Cheap oil is not profitable for Russia. This is, perhaps, the main contradiction between the Russian Federation and the “American bloc” in the field of oil and general economic policy.
RG: We will now tell you our point of view, and you can correct us if necessary. The so-called Russian state capitalism of recent years consisted in the fact that the state created megacorporations that began to buy private business. This required loans, which were taken out in the West. Hence the gigantic corporate debts, which are now the main threat to Russia. Do you agree with this? And if so, why did state corporations begin to buy ready-made capacities from private businesses?
Khazin: Well, they received part of the money for the purchase from the state. As for the purchase... If such a corporation is led by a financier (or someone who fancies himself a financier), then, in most cases, he does not understand the specifics of a particular production.
RG: Are you repeating yourself because this aspect is very important?
Khazin: Yes very. Let's say, such a financier is told that to develop such and such technology (or purchase), for example, 100 million dollars are needed. He estimates according to his criteria and says: I will give you 200, but you will return 100. He is told that this is impossible: the technology costs 100, and at least another 40 may be required to set it up, including training specialists, training engineers, and so on. But in his understanding, the proportions are different, and there is no need to prepare anyone. There is an overabundance of financiers of this kind today. And the necessary new generation technologists are not on the market. That is, today the same question is again - “Personnel decide everything!”
RG: But small and medium-sized businesses, although with difficulties, are already working?
Khazin: Yes it works. This is what they are trying to “embrace” in order to survive at his expense. Explaining to its owners that the maximum they can count on is a place with a good salary in a large office. As a result, usually after such operations the innovative part of small and medium-sized businesses simply dies quietly. I know many such precedents...
Let's switch to "bunnies"?
RG: Is it possible that the economic leaders in the post-Soviet space will be Belarus and Turkmenistan, whose policies of “pragmatic isolationism” and comprehensive state control over the economy have ensured that they are much less affected by the crisis?
Khazin: Why not? But they are too small. However, imagine that we would have been pursuing a policy similar to the economic policy of, for example, Belarus all these years! Then today we could, in my opinion, dictate our terms to many. More precisely, I mean the policy of all possible stimulation of industrial growth.
RG: Is it good or bad that Russia has not yet joined the WTO? Will we ever get there? And, perhaps, on better terms than we have been presented with in recent years?
Khazin: I am not sure that the WTO in its current form will exist in a couple of years. For the current crisis will most likely continue and destroy the global financial, monetary and trading system, so there will almost certainly not be a modern WTO. Modern system world trade, controlled by the WTO, or more precisely, by the West, is gradually disintegrating. It is still difficult to say what will happen in return. It is possible that these will be regional trading blocs rather than a global organization.
Gold - for all time?
RG: Since we are economic journalists, our acquaintances and colleagues have often asked us in recent days where to store our savings. We advise them - in Swiss francs. Maybe we are advising stupidity?
Khazin: Well, this is, in principle, possible. But you forgot the yuan, and gold coins - why not worthy of storing savings today? The problem with savings is that the situation will change quite quickly: some currencies will rise and then fall just as quickly, so “expensive” assets will not be able to be sold quickly, and so on. As the famous joke goes: “The Ukrainian night is dark, but the lard needs to be hidden!” - if people want to transfer assets every week, then you certainly won’t give them any advice. However, such shifts are unlikely to be effective.
RG: Well, anyway. Many experts advise returning to storing savings primarily in gold...
Khazin: Yes, I am convinced that the best long-term investment today is gold coins. Today they are much more reliable than foreign currencies. Previous crises also showed that savings in gold turned out to be, one might say, safer. And they were even multiplied, unlike cash savings. As for our conditions and the ruble itself, it is advisable, in my opinion, to store the “accumulated” in rubles in any bank. The main thing is that the deposit is less than 700,000 rubles.
RG: How do you think prices for gasoline and food will behave in Russia? And what will happen to the social support system, especially the pension system?
Khazin: The state, in my opinion, will strive to fully support social system, because it has not only socio-economic significance for the state and society. Another thing is the real payment and purchasing power of these pensions and benefits in the face of rising prices. Our gasoline prices may fall, since world oil prices are falling (but, of course, not as significantly as oil prices), but the share of expenses on gasoline in family budget it may grow. The main thing here is the size and prospects of this budget, not to mention the pricing policy of the gasoline business, to be more precise - oil companies. And ready-made food is by no means becoming cheaper in the world, and the share of imports in Russian food consumption is still high and, according to a number of forecasts, may increase further.
RG: In other words, will the structure of consumer demand change, which will also affect prices?
Khazin: That's it! The crisis will greatly change and is already beginning to change the price structure and the consumption structure. And I do not rule out that middle-income families will have to limit their consumption, be it gasoline or food.
Recorded by Evgeny Arsyukhin, Alexey Chichkin
RG dossier
History of world crises
The first world economic crisis of 1857-1859 began in the United States and then spread to Europe. The reasons are massive bankruptcies of railway companies and the collapse of the stock market.
The crisis of 1873-1876 began with Austria-Hungary and Germany. The prerequisite was a credit boom in Latin America, fueled from England, and a speculative boom in the real estate market in Germany and Austria-Hungary. In the United States, a banking panic began after a strong fall in shares on the New York Stock Exchange and the bankruptcy of the main financier and president of the United Pacific railway Jay Cook.
In 1914, a crisis began due to the outbreak of war. The main reason is the urgent total sale of securities of foreign issuers by the governments of the USA, Great Britain, France and Germany to finance military operations.
The fourth world crisis (1920-1923) is associated with post-war deflation (increased purchasing power of the national currency) and recession (decline in production). It began with banking and currency crises, first in Denmark, then in Norway, Italy, Finland, Holland, the USA and Great Britain.
1929-1933 - the “Great Depression”, which spread from the USA to most countries of the world
The sixth crisis began in 1957 and lasted until mid-1958. It covered the USA, Great Britain, Canada, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and many other capital countries. It was caused by overproduction, the collapse of the colonial system, and rising oil prices (due to the joint aggression of Israel, Great Britain and France against Egypt in the fall of 1956).
The crisis of 1973-1975 began with the United States; it is associated primarily with the “oil embargo” against the West by most major oil-exporting countries in the fall of 1973.
Black Monday: October 19, 1987 US stock index The Dow Jones Industrial fell by 22.6 percent, following the American market, the markets of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong, and South Korea, many Latin American countries. This was due to the outflow of investors from those markets after a strong decline in the capitalization of several largest transnational and regional companies.
1997 - East Asian crisis, the largest fall in the Asian stock market after the Second World War. It arose primarily due to the withdrawal of foreign investors from most countries of Southeast Asia and from many Far Eastern “industrial dragons”. Reduced global GDP by $2 trillion.
1998 - Russian crisis, one of the most difficult in the history of Russia. Reasons: growing state debt, low world prices for raw materials, especially energy, and the pyramid of state bonds, which the Russian government was unable to pay on time.
“This is the most interesting thing that will happen in a presidential election year”
The beginning of the year is a traditional time for macroeconomic forecasts: what surprises - pleasant and not so pleasant - should the population expect in the coming months. We asked one of the most quoted and rated economists in Russia, Mikhail Khazin, president of the Economic Research Foundation, a well-known publicist, consultant and analyst, to speak on this topic.
Mikhail Leonidovich is known for his consistent rejection of liberal approaches to economics and his criticism of the Russian government, which, in his opinion, professes these approaches. He did not change his principles in a conversation with our publication.
Mikhail Leonidovich, the economic results of last year turned out to be contradictory. The government said that economic growth had begun in the country, the ruble exchange rate had stabilized, and inflation had fallen to a historical low of 2.5%. However, incomes continued to fall, and citizens did not feel any positive changes when they looked into their wallets. So what do we have now: the beginning of growth or the end of decline?
I don’t think that 2017 was a contradictory year from an economic point of view. It was an absolutely logical continuation of previous years. The government can say whatever it wants to the population on this matter, but these are just words.
The economic downturn in our country began in the fourth quarter of 2012. Somewhere by 2013–2014. income growth has stopped.
The fact is that when a recession begins, income growth continues for some time due to inertia. If the economic downturn is short, people may not notice. But in Russia the recession is prolonged. It has reached a stable level of 2–2.5% per year.
This is primarily due to the lack of investment for self-reproduction of the economy. Compensation for investments does not depend on us, because they are foreign. It is impossible to return capital to the homeland. The only exception was 2015, when the head of the Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, I believe, on orders from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), staged a massive devaluation of the ruble. As a result, foreign capital flowed out of Russia - $200 billion, and the economic decline then amounted to 8-10%. In subsequent years, the situation returned to normal, by the same minus 2–2.5%, but the decline in the living standards of the population accelerated greatly.
What are your macroeconomic expectations for this year - especially taking into account the upcoming elections and the promises being made about this? Will the lives of ordinary people change for the better as a result?
The decline is likely to accelerate in 2018. Indirect evidence of this is that there was no seasonal autumn economic growth.
Regardless of the results of the year, there are always two recessions in the economy - summer and New Year's, and two upturns - autumn and spring. Judging by the fact that there was no autumn recovery, we are now, based on the results New Year's holidays, we will notice a rather sharp decline. Whether there will be a spring recovery is not obvious. There is no reason for this.
Russia has a unique government that constantly makes all sorts of mistakes. For example, in an economic downturn, it increases taxes. If you don't change economic model, this will do nothing but accelerate the decline.
- Should we expect major changes in the taxation system after the elections and in what manner?
If the composition of the government does not change, taxes will increase. The fact is that in the understanding of the liberal government, the economic policy of the state is balancing the budget. Today his job is to collect taxes. And the fact that the taxpayers themselves are being liquidated does not bother them. They live one day at a time.
The current government has no strategy. The government has a tactical body - the Ministry of Finance and a strategic body - the Ministry of Economy. All their lives, liberals have wanted to bring the Ministry of Economics under the Ministry of Finance.
Yegor Gaidar, when he came to the government at the end of 1991, created a unified Ministry of Finance and Economics with the priority of the Ministry of Finance. Later, Oleg Lobov managed to straighten out the Ministry of Economy, but in the end it was first greatly “lowered” by separating sectoral departments from it and creating the Ministry of Industry, and now, with the appointment of Maxim Oreshkin, a native of the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Economy was in fact turned into a department of the Ministry of Finance.
As a result of all these maneuvers, Russia systematically lacks an economic strategy. And the tactic is this: if in order to replenish the budget today it is necessary to liquidate all small and medium-sized businesses, this will be done. What, in fact, is what the government does - and nothing else!
But the members of the government are appointed to us not by the International Monetary Fund, but by the Russian president. And Vladimir Putin, all the years of his reign, relied on liberals at the head of economic departments: Kudrin and Gref, Ulyukaev and Nabiullina, Shuvalov and Dvorkovich, Siluanov and Oreshkin... It turns out that there are some factors and the results of their activities that force Putin over and over again should we put liberals at the head of the economic bloc?
The question presupposes that in our country the president is the absolute bearer of power. This does not happen anywhere and never. As Catherine II said, answering the question of how you manage to get along with your nobility: “I never offend them.” And she had more power than Putin today.
In our elite, economic and financial policies are traditionally determined by the so-called liberal group - people focused on the global financial elite, which has ensured economic growth in the world economy since 1944, with the adoption of the Bretton Woods agreements.
- Reveal the secret: who is included in this “liberal group”?
We all know them. She's family-oriented. It includes Igor Shuvalov, Alexander Voloshin. The performers include the group of Yegor Gaidar - Anatoly Chubais, which includes, for example, Elvira Nabiullina, Arkady Dvorkovich, Alexey Kudrin and the entire privatization elite.
This group ensured our country’s relations with the IMF and the influx of foreign investment. She was responsible for this for 25 years. The slightest attempt by other groups to get involved in this topic ended in wild scandals.
For example, when Vladimir Polevanov was appointed head of the State Property Committee of the Russian Federation in 1994 and tried to stop illegal privatization, the IMF announced to Boris Yeltsin that if Polevanov was not removed from office within two weeks, there would be no loan from the IMF. When the head of the Central Bank, Viktor Gerashchenko, in 1998 made the decision of the Central Bank to discount bills, which destroyed the monopoly of the dollar, accordingly, the IMF followed in the same way with an extremely strict demand to immediately cancel this decision.
But this is all an interpretation of the events of the distant 90s. We live at the end of the second decade of the 21st century, and for 18 years now we have not been ruled by Yeltsin and his “family”...
In 1991, Russia accepted the IMF's rules of the game - the Bretton Woods system. Afterwards, this group of people began to determine the economic and financial system in our country. True, she has suffered a number of heavy losses over the past few years. The main blow for them was the coming to power in the United States of Donald Trump, who personifies the American regional elites, and does not represent transnational financiers.
Today's problem of the liberal group is objective. For many decades, it ensured economic growth throughout the world through emissions. At present, this group is simply not able to ensure this growth. In relation to our country, it cannot provide a sufficient volume of foreign investment.
Representatives of this group began to be asked questions: if you cannot ensure economic growth, why are you sitting here? In other words, the elite consensus that emerged in the early 1990s and that Vladimir Putin championed as president has come to an end. I think in 2018 it will change to a different consensus, and this is the most interesting thing that will happen in a presidential election year.
However, the process of changing elites will occur not only in our country, but throughout the world. That group, which really began to rush to power at the end of the 19th century, made a powerful breakthrough in 1913, with the creation of the first private central bank - the US Federal Reserve System, and which actually took control of the Western world in 1944 and the rest of the world in 1991, it exhausted its resource. This year there will be a fundamental change in the elite, and this is a very significant event.
Can you name the names of specific people not from the liberal camp who could occupy key positions at the head of the economic bloc of the government after the elections?
Internal elite consensus must occur first. They must decide among themselves who will now determine economic policy. This will be decided at the elite, behind-the-scenes level. We won't know when this will happen.
-Who will decide this?
It's not clear yet. Among those negotiating, in my opinion, there will definitely be Kudrin, Chubais, Voloshin, some security officials, some regional leaders. Through long, complex negotiations, they will decide among themselves who is suitable and who is not, and in the end they will make a choice. Having made a decision, they will begin to look for performers for it.
Elite discussions take place outside the public sphere. Somewhere, in some mansion or somewhere on the seashore, 4–5 people sit and decide how to do it right. Another 5 people sit in another place. Then they intersect. All this happens over months, and as a result, they develop an understanding of how to act and how not to.
Let's return from political conspiracy theories to economic specifics. The President promised us to quickly raise minimum size wages (minimum wage) up to the subsistence level from May 1 of the current year. Will there be funds for this in the budget and will this initiative help solve the problem of poverty in the country?
Any economy produces some social product. The only question is how to distribute it: some to business owners, some to the budget, some to officials, some to pensioners.
If the overall pie is shrinking, the only way to give someone more is by taking something away from someone. Someone has to be the victim. If, for example, the government dispossesses the privatization elite of the 1990s, more money will be allocated to pensioners. If not, retirees will receive less. What will be written in the documents and how it will be formatted is unimportant and uninteresting.
All the talk about the minimum wage and living wage- fiction. Rosstat, as they tell it, will calculate it. He also considers economic growth against the background of a recession, and also that pensions are growing - despite the fact that they are falling.
- That is, the population should not hope for the best?
It can hope as much as it wants, but nothing will change. There is no money in the regional budgets to increase the minimum wage. The population will continue to get poorer. You may not agree with this, but it is a fact. People need to survive - they won’t be able to live.
Advice from Mikhail Khazin: how to save for old age
There are two ways pension savings. First: while you receive wages, each time you need to buy one gold coin. This will be your pension savings.
Second: if you are not yet forty years old, you need to give birth to children. And the more, the better. It will not be easy to raise and feed them in our conditions, but then, when you become pensioners, they will be able to support you.
Whipped Eden Arya. Some girls put out the ass the most Vol. Beautiful Granny Sucking Young Cock. A text message with your code has been sent to:. Didn't receive the code? Don't have your phone?
Hot Naked Moms Pics and Sexy Mature Mom Porn
Please contact support. Create a new Playlist. Please enter the required information. Add Tag. Sign in to add this to a playlist.
Beautiful Nude Mature Women Pics Pics - website
Hot aunty captured nude while bathing 2 min Rkarthik - 2. Teen gets her pussy pounded after receiving oral 5 min Sneaky Sex - 1. Big ass teen hot sexy girl big tits beautiful porn Tight long dress for lady 8 min Snickers Baby - Aunty stripped and fucked 7 min Gealgarcia - 6. Hot Mature Fucking Pics Aged Mom My Pictures Mature Women Pics Moms Fucking Pics Fuck Milf Pics Hairy Pussy Babes Mom Porn Pics Gallery Beautiful Japanese Girl 2 ilikegarrysmod young Russian boy and mature Russian woman Hot busty cougar fucks and takes a facial Mom POV.
German beauty Milf Teacher fucks young boy after game germangirly.
Beauty Galleries
Beautiful girls mature and anal in BDSM 9. Searches Related to "beautiful mature women naked". Mature Porn Pics Old Women Sex Pictures Sexy Milf Porn Mature Sex Lab Pics Free Mature Galleries Hairy Pussy Babes Nude Mature Pictures Granny Sex Granny Pics Senior Boobs Mature Porn 43 Mature Bz Charming Tits Milf Tits HQ Plumpers Moms Oclock Sexy Moms Mature Ladies Sinful Pornstars Moms Price MILF Run Milf Sea Old Moms Tgp Nude Hot Moms Milf Era Sexy Mature Pussy Milf Kiss Pride Matures Milf Zero Aged Twats Xxx Mature Stiflers Milfs pretty Brown Maids women Sexy Milf Pussy Naked Moms Porn Rest Mature Mature Women Porn Nude Milf Xxx Mature Moms Pics Mature Fucker Milf Zaur Hot Mature Diary Fucker Book Very Hot Matures Horny Women Mature Mature Sex Milf In Porn Ah MILF Nude Flowers German Granny Cool Grandma Sex Mature Freak Granny Pics Cock Riding Mature Bombas Mature Xxx World Mom Series Brave Milfs Old Bitch Fucked MILF Run Mature Sex Land Golden Milf Granny Buff.
Disclaimer: AgedMamas.
Beauty Galleries
We do not own, produce or host the galleries displayed on this website. All of the galleries displayed on our site are hosted by websites that are not under our control. The linked galleries are automatically gathered and added into our system by our spider script. Thumbnails are automatically generated from the pictures. The list of related phrases is also based on surfers search queries.
We take no responsibility for the content on any website which we link to. We take no responsibility for the phrases entered by surfers.
Table(s)
| Offering exclusive content not available on Pornhub. Pornhub team is always updating and adding more porn videos every day. We have a huge free DVD selection that you can download or stream. Pornhub is the most complete and revolutionary porn tube site. We offer streaming porn videos, downloadable DVDs, photo albums, and the number 1 free sex community on the net. We"re always working towards adding more features that will keep your love for porno alive and well. For the safety and privacy of your Pornhub account, remember to never enter your password on any site other than pornhub. | ||
 |
Beauty Mature Porn Collection. Select the category. Porn videos: iWank. Popular Latest. AZ Gals. Hot Moms Pussy. | |
 |
Rebecca Carter Smooth Caramel Nude. Jackie Stevens Outside. FFM French mature ass fucked for her amateur casting couch with a redhead slut. Hot aunty captured nude while bathing. Some girls put out the ass the most Vol. | |
 |
Sexy mature nudes pics, nude mature women pictures, sexy naked women pictures. Nude Mature. Nude Moms Galleries 2. Nude Moms Pics 3. Fresh Hairy Pussy 4. Nude Mature Pics 5. |