Economics is a fairly broad concept that includes the study of social work and economic activity, analysis of the external and internal movement of products of social activity. Money is taken as the basis of economic models, and a person is considered as an economic unit.

Economics is a dynamic science, as it is constantly changing, developing, and being supplemented. This science is closely related to politics: governments of different countries develop various economic plans, adhere to them and ensure that society is provided with necessary goods and services in sufficient quantities.

How the economy works

The economy is a complex system that exists according to its own laws. We are talking about laws:

• increased demand, supply, needs;
• increasing time costs;
• diminishing returns;
• diminishing marginal utility;
• limited resources.

The modern economy is striving for globalization, which ideally should lead not only to the creation of a common economic policy, but to the emergence of a common money and a common government.

Money is the basis of the economy today: the first money appeared in China, and already in 1971 an economic reform was carried out in the world, the consequences of which still affect the economy today - we are talking about tying the dollar to gold.

What awaits the Russian economy

Russia is a country with a raw materials economy, that is, a country whose economy is built on the sale of raw materials. As for domestic production, today it is developed at an insufficient level.

We can talk for a very long time about what awaits the Russian economy in the near future. Most experts are inclined to believe that we have a difficult and long road ahead of us out of stagnation. But opinions differ on how long it will take to bring the economy to a decent level, and on which scenario is best to do this. You can find up-to-date information on this topic on the Sravni.ru website.

Economic development

Economic development is a stable quantitative and qualitative change in economic indicators:

• level of education;
• production forces;
• standard of living of the population, including cultural;
• level of medicine;
• public relations.

One of the indicators of the competitiveness of an individual country’s economy and economic freedom is GDP per capita. The main engines of economic development and growth also include human resources and human-created innovations.

Modern economics

The Russian economy is going through hard times today (as is the global economy). Unsurprisingly, the unstable political situation could not but have an impact on economic development, making relations between some countries very strained. This, in turn, provoked many restrictions in the field of foreign trade.

However, many experts are inclined to believe that after the political situation stabilizes, the economy will also begin to actively develop and strengthen.

You can find out what factors influence the modern economy, what ways you can overcome the crisis, and get acquainted with the opinions of users and experts on the Sravni.ru website.

The eighth Exchange Forum has now passed, and we again saw specialists who have been determining the vector of economic development of our country for a long time: the head of the Central Bank E. Nabiullina, the Minister of Finance A. Siluanov, the permanent chairman of the board of Sberbank G. Gref and, of course, the former minister Finance A. Kudrin. Of course, it’s always interesting to listen to the masters, but perhaps the first problem they voiced was the lack of investment in our country. For example, in January the influx of foreign investment amounted to as much as 34 million dollars, which by the standards of the economy of the Russian Federation is a completely minuscule amount.

But why? Why have we been proclaiming the attraction of foreign investment as the alpha and omega of the development of the Russian economy for decades, but the money hasn’t come to us and still isn’t coming?

In fact, from the point of view of economic theory, the lack of massive investment in the Russian economy seems completely absurd. A simple example - lending rates in the Russian Federation are much higher than in Europe or the USA, i.e. Russian banks make much more profit on their invested capital than their European counterparts. According to economic theory, foreign banks should simply stand in line for the right to open their representative offices in the Russian Federation. They can secure excess profits for themselves by “trading money” at Russian rates, or they can conquer the Russian market by offering much more favorable terms of cooperation to domestic producers. From the point of view of economic science, the Russian Federation is simply doomed to a “mass invasion” of foreign capital, after which, over time, lending conditions in the Russian Federation and Europe would gradually equalize, because banks would fight for clientele, gradually lowering the cost of credit, i.e. e. interest rates until they (as well as the profits made by banks) are comparable to the European average.

But for some reason this doesn't happen. Where does economic theory go wrong?

In order to understand this, it is necessary to understand how the economy of the Russian Federation works. First, let's see what it consists of. Below is the structure of the gross domestic product (GDP) of the Russian Federation.

Wholesale and retail trade - 17.2%.
Manufacturing industry - 15.6%.
Rent, public administration services and military security - 12.3%.
Mining - 10.1%.
Transport services and communications - 8.7%.
Social insurance - 6.6%.
Construction services - 6.5%.
Financial activities - 5.4%.
Health care and other social services - 4.2%.
Agriculture and forestry, hunting - 4.0%.
Production and distribution of electricity, gas and water - 3.4%.
Education - 3%.
Other communal, social and personal services - 1.8%.
Hotel and restaurant business - 1.0%.
Fishing - 0.2%.
TOTAL - 100%.

Let's remember what GDP is. This is the cost of the final product produced over a period of time, usually a year. What does the word “final” have to do with it? Let's explain with a simple example. Let’s say that the GDP of a certain country consists of one stool with a market value of 3 rubles. There are 3 people living in the country. One planed boards and sold them for a ruble, the second made nails and sold them for a ruble, and the third bought the nails and boards they produced from the first two workers and made a stool for 3 rubles. So, GDP is the cost of the final product (stool), and not the sum of all products (a ruble for boards, a ruble for nails and 3 rubles for a stool - 5 rubles), because as a result of labor activity, the state only got one stool, and the boards and nails were used for its production, and they are no longer there - despite the fact that their value is taken into account in the market price of the stool.

Now let's look again at the structure of the Russian Federation's GDP. Contrary to the once widespread assertion that in the Russian Federation, in addition to the gas pipe, there is also an oil pipe, and nothing else, we are surprised to see that all mining, which, in addition to oil and gas, also includes ore, precious metals and so on and so forth, amounts to some 10.1% of the total volume of production. Hooray?

Let's wait and rejoice and look at the structure of federal budget revenues, or the state budget, as it is usually called.

And here we are surprised to discover that the very 10.1% that the extractive industry provides for the Russian Federation’s GDP (actually less, since the oil and gas sector is only part of the extractive industry) provides almost 44% of all budget revenues. Is it a lot or a little? Well, even offhand it’s obvious that this is a lot, but we’ll dig a little deeper.

Budget revenues from all other revenues, except the oil and gas sector, amount to 7,694 billion rubles. Let's look at the costs. If we add up the social obligations of our state, the investments it makes in the economy of the Russian Federation (and without which, obviously, even the above-mentioned 7,694 billion cannot be collected), expenses on education and medicine, then we will get 8,049 billion rubles.

Thus, we can state a fact that is terrifying in its simplicity.

Even if world peace comes and we no longer need any armed forces...

Even if all people suddenly live according to their conscience and according to the Law of God, and law enforcement agencies and courts will no longer be needed...

Even if the creditors of the Russian Federation, external and internal, all as one forgive the Russian state its debts...

Even if we don’t spend a penny from the budget on media and culture, environmental protection and sports, we will transfer housing and communal services to full self-sufficiency...

And even if all public administration is carried out completely free of charge, on a voluntary basis...

...then in this case, 90% of the economy of the Russian Federation, all our factories, transport, agriculture, trade, etc. and so on. will not be able to provide with money the level of education, pensions and healthcare that we now have.

But, let’s face it, today’s level of education is not at all amazing. Free medicine is becoming more and more difficult to access, there are not enough doctors, it is often very difficult to get to specialized specialists, so you have to go to paid clinics, well, or sacrifice your health if there is no money for it. Pensions are on the verge and beyond the subsistence level (real, not what our government believes). That is, in a good way, all of the above requires additional investments, but our economy (with the exception of the oil and gas sector) simply does not have the money for this.

Maybe our taxes are low? No, as a percentage of the cost of the manufactured product, our taxes are quite at the level - if we count all these VAT, personal income tax, income tax, property tax, transport tax, payments to the pension fund, social insurance, etc., then the tax burden is quite comparable with Western countries. Perhaps they take a little more from personal income than we do, but less from company revenue, but rearranging the terms does not change the amount. Apparently, the problem is that the revenue, profits and wages of Russian companies are much more modest than in the West - hence the difference in tax amounts.

In other words, if the production and trade of almost any Western country provides it with tax revenues sufficient to meet the entire range of government needs, including social security, defense (although they save a lot on this), and so on, then nothing like that is happening in our country. And this suggests that our production, trade and service sector are in such a deep crisis that without “oil and gas” support they are completely unable to ensure the normal functioning of the state.

It wasn't always like this. The state budget of the Russian Empire did not have any excess income from foreign trade, as the budget of the Russian Federation does now, and the USSR did not immediately become hooked on the oil and gas needle. We can say that the problems that began in the USSR economy in the 60s of the last century gradually grew, but were not resolved. As a result, already under Brezhnev, an economic crisis loomed on the horizon for the country. But here high oil prices just happened, and the USSR unexpectedly received a source of financing, which, in theory, could help improve its economy. Unfortunately, it was not possible to take advantage of this opportunity (although they tried), and high oil prices only delayed the crisis, and then the then leadership, led by M. Gorbachev, began to look for a way out in changing the economic model of management.

The model was changed - the planned economy was replaced by a market economy. Both now and previously it has been argued that a market economy is much more effective than a planned one. Our citizens have made enormous sacrifices to transition to a market economy. Wild 90s, widespread lack of money and poverty, rampant crime, a monstrous demographic hole, because people often could not feed themselves, what kind of children are there... The number of unborn is estimated at least in the millions, and how many people died prematurely?

But we paid the price, and here we are in a market economy, which seems to be much more efficient than a planned one. But where is this effect? The late USSR could not meet its obligations without “gas and oil” support, because income from industry and trade was not enough for this. 26 years have passed since the death of the USSR, but today's Russian Federation is just as unable to meet its obligations without high oil and gas prices!

Thus, the first thing we must admit: despite the fact that more than a quarter of a century has passed since the collapse of the USSR, and that the “wild 90s” ended 17 years ago, we, the Russian Federation, have still not been able to create an effective economic model for our productive forces. The key problem with our economy is that it is fundamentally inefficient, and without recognizing this fact we will never move forward.

As you know, the first step in recovery from alcohol addiction is recognizing its presence. Until a person understands that his problems are not in a harsh boss, traitorous friends or a nagging wife, but in himself, in his craving for alcohol, he will not be able to recover. It’s not for nothing that people at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings introduce themselves: “I’m Bill, and I’m an alcoholic!” Alas, our leading experts in the field of economics and finance do not want to “get to the root,” as Kozma Prutkov bequeathed. Instead of admitting that there is a problem (that the economic model they have built is in fact unworkable), they are looking for an “evil boss” and a “nagging wife”: this time they are “found” in the form of a lack of foreign investment. They cannot admit that the lack of investment is not the cause, but only the consequence of our plight.

And yet - why did this happen? Why is our production less efficient than many other countries? There are many reasons for this, and perhaps the first of them is that our industry (and trade) finds itself in completely unequal conditions in comparison with the West.

At some points this is objective. It is clear that the Russian plant in the Urals incurs slightly higher costs than a similar manufacturer in sunny Spain, where the concept of central heating is largely unfamiliar. And it is not so easy for a Russian farmer to compete with an Italian one, who harvests twice a year. But all this can be compensated for - yes, a slightly lower salary, a slightly lower standard of living... but not significantly!

But the availability of loans is a completely different matter. It is much more difficult for a Russian manufacturer to get a loan, and this loan will be three times more expensive than that of his Western competitor. In other words, for the same price, an “imported” entrepreneur will attract several times more funds! In the West, investment lending is very widespread, when an enterprise is given a loan to purchase production facilities and repays the loan after many years, despite the fact that such “long” loans cost much less than “short” ones. In the Russian Federation, in order to receive an investment loan, an enterprise needs to demonstrate such good financial performance that it is not at all clear why it also needs some kind of loan. Perhaps the bank itself will provide a loan, at the most reasonable price...

As a result, the Russian manufacturer is severely limited in its capabilities - its Western competitor is always able to mobilize a large amount of money for any project, commission the latest production facilities much faster, and all this will cost him less than ours. That is why at one time the author of this article was taken aback by the tireless attempts of the Russian Federation to break into the WTO: how can we strive for equal competition if our industry and agriculture are in initially unequal conditions and there is not the slightest prospect that this will be corrected?

So, domestic producers are desperately short of money, and what they have is very expensive. What to do? Our would-be economists have a “brilliant” answer to this. Can't get money from Russian banks or are they too expensive for you? No question - go borrow money in the West, we have a free country... Formally, it really is - who is stopping the average Russian holding company from issuing a bunch of additional shares or bonds and selling them on the New York or Tokyo stock exchange?

Nothing... except for one thing.

As we see, the instability of the domestic economy obviously leads to the instability of the state budget, and our government cannot and will not tolerate this. But he is unable to create a sane economic model for the country’s development, in which both the production forces and the budget will acquire the necessary margin of safety. This means that the government can either resign or come up with ways in which the sustainability of the budget will depend only to a minimal extent on the country’s economy. It sounds absurd, but our government has such possibilities.

Here we live with a balanced budget, in which expenses are equal to income at an oil price of about $70, and suddenly - bam - oil drops by 30 percent, say, to $50. Of course, tax revenues, which provide almost half of the budget, immediately “sag” ”by about the same 30%, and the budget begins to run out of money. But what happens if at this moment you go ahead and collapse the ruble/dollar exchange rate? Let’s say a dollar was worth 30 rubles, but our Central Bank caused a bit of stock market panic, causing the rate to rise to 40 rubles per dollar.

Of course, if it turns out that oil has dropped to 50 dollars per barrel, then it will cost 50 dollars, and we will sell it for 50 dollars and not a cent more. But if with a dollar worth 30 rubles, the cost of oil in rubles was 1,500 rubles, then after the exchange rate increased, it was already 2,000 rubles, i.e. there is an “increase” in revenue by 33%... The fact is that we sell oil for dollars, but we collect taxes in rubles, recalculating the dollar transaction into the ruble equivalent at the current rate - accordingly, our tax revenues from exported hydrocarbons will immediately increase by as much as 33%...

This is how it turns out that, by dropping the value of the ruble, the government increases tax and customs revenues to the budget in rubles. But budget expenses remain the same as they were - all obligations for pensions, medicine, etc. are calculated in rubles, and when the ruble exchange rate depreciates, they no longer become so.

Of course, free cheese only comes in a mousetrap. By doing this, the state actually shifts budget problems onto its people. After all, we do not live in the Soviet Union, which tried to produce almost everything on its own. We live in the Russian Federation, and our ears have been buzzing about integration into the world economy and how good it is. As a result, we have a huge dependence on foreign supplies - even in our own production facilities there are often imported machines that require imported components and consumables. There are a lot of imported cars running on the roads, and they need imported spare parts, in offices there are imported computers, etc. Naturally, when the ruble exchange rate depreciates, trading companies cannot maintain the old prices for long - they will sell off the stocks in warehouses purchased at the “old” ruble exchange rate, and then they need to raise prices... As a result, prices rise, and they rise not only for those goods that We purchase abroad, but also those that we produce ourselves... only we produce and deliver them using imported equipment and transport. And that's how inflation begins. And the same pensioners, receiving the pensions promised to them, see that now they can no longer buy as much with them as they bought before.

But what’s surprising is that the government will also be able to turn the high level of inflation to its advantage. In order to understand this mechanism, we need to understand how nominal and real GDP differ.

Let’s say a certain country produced exactly 100 boxes of matches in 2015 at a price of 1 ruble each. Its GDP was 100 rubles. The next year, 2016, the country produced the same 100 boxes of matches, but due to inflation they began to cost 1 ruble. 10 kopecks, i.e. inflation was 10%. Thus, the nominal GDP of this country amounted to 110 rubles. - that’s how much 100 boxes of matches cost in 2016 prices. Can we be happy that the country’s GDP has grown by 10%? Obviously not: real GDP remained exactly the same as it was in 2015, 100 rubles, because in 2016 the country produced exactly the same amount of products as last year, i.e. 100 boxes.

In other words, real GDP is nominal GDP minus the effects of inflation. The problem is that if a country produced only matchboxes, then inflation would be easy to track by simply counting the number of products produced, but if a huge number of types of these same products are produced, then it can no longer be counted in pieces, only in rubles, and here manipulations are already possible.

Let's imagine such a situation. In 2015, the country produced 100 boxes of matches for 1 ruble, respectively, GDP = 100 rubles, and in 2016 the country produced only 95 boxes, but for 1 ruble. 10 kopecks, and nominal GDP amounted to 104.5 rubles. What to do? In fact, real GDP in 2016 was only 95 rubles. and decreased by 5% compared to last year, but what if...

...what if we declare real GDP at 100 rubles. and inflation of 4.5%? Grace. Firstly, we can say that “despite the difficult economic situation, the economy has reached the bottom and is no longer declining,” and confidently talk about future growth (while production is falling), secondly, the level of necessary indexation of pensions and salaries for public sector employees is no longer 10%, but only 4.5%. And if a decision is made on indexation, the pension will still not restore its purchasing power

The author has no reliable information that the government is using this tool. But tell me, dear VO readers, when you go to stores, don’t you think that the official data on the inflation rate... somehow do not correspond to the realities of life?

Well, now, having dealt with the impact on the budget of an artificial depreciation of the ruble and inflation, let’s put ourselves in the place of a manufacturing enterprise that is asked to look for money for business development abroad.

Most of our enterprises operate primarily on the domestic market, because, not having equal conditions with foreign companies and not having their capabilities, it is difficult for them to compete with the products of imported manufacturers in foreign markets. Therefore, the bulk of our companies' revenue is in rubles. Well, let’s say such a plant placed somewhere in New York bonds, worth 10 million dollars, bought 300 million rubles with them (at a price of 30 rubles per dollar) and bought the latest equipment from another Russian plant, thereby stimulating domestic manufacturer. Beauty! The plant operates, sells products, and in order to repay the foreign debt, it will subsequently need to collect 300 million rubles.

And then suddenly the price of oil fell, the Central Bank “raised the price”, and the dollar now costs 40 rubles. And our plant suddenly discovers with surprise that instead of 300 million rubles. he already owes 400 million rubles! Its foreign currency debt has not increased, it remains 10 million dollars, but in order to return it, the company will need 400 million rubles. Just like that, completely unexpectedly and out of nowhere, the plant’s debt increased by 33%!

The problem is that the benefit that the Russian budget receives as a result of the devaluation of the ruble boomerangs on companies with dollar debts - they lose money in approximately the same proportion as the budget gains it. As a result of this, any dollar loans turn into a real “Russian roulette” for enterprises operating on the domestic Russian market, because if during the period of their validity there is a significant devaluation of the ruble, then the enterprise can easily be driven to bankruptcy by an unexpectedly increased debt.

Well, now let’s return to the question: why don’t foreign investments “go” to the Russian Federation?

First of all, you need to realize that, with rare exceptions, no foreign investor will come to us to create a transnational corporation that will sell the bulk of its products for export, i.e. outside the Russian Federation. Many foreign investors agree to buy such a corporation if we have one, but they will not create it here - why? They would rather create such production in their own country. It’s a completely different matter to invest in Russian production to develop the domestic market of the Russian Federation, and this is what they are, in principle, ready to do. But... this means that the foreign investor “steps on the same rake” as the plant that attracts foreign investment from the example described above!

Let's put ourselves in the place of an investor who is considering whether or not to give our plant in the example above 10 million dollars. The investor perfectly understands the complexity of the situation in which the plant may find itself after the devaluation of the ruble - after all, its debt to the investor will increase (in our example) from 300 million rubles. up to 400 million rubles The investor realizes that if something like this happens, the risk of non-repayment on the bonds he purchased will increase sharply. Why does a foreigner need this risk? They invest for profit, and engage in extreme sports for risk...

The problem is that the instability of the ruble exchange rate, which is used as a “magic wand” for patching budget holes, is the strongest “scarecrow” for any potential investor. We ourselves push away investments, and then we are surprised at something else.

Naturally, no amount of privatization will help anything in such a situation. We cannot wait for foreign investment, or they will buy out highly profitable oil and gas assets, the sale of which, in general, with rare exceptions, should be considered a state crime. As for internal reserves... in fact, they do not exist in nature.

Of course, Forbes is full of faces of our fellow billionaires, but you need to understand that quite often, if a person has a fortune of 20 billion dollars, this does not mean that he has 20 billion dollars lying somewhere in an American bank. This means that he is the owner of a bunch of “factories, newspapers, ships,” which are valued at $20 billion (and are often valued by our oligarch’s appraisers). But in fact, these factories often do not bring much profit, but are heavily debt-ridden and lack working capital. And it quite happens that with a fortune of 20 billion dollars, an oligarch is not able to raise 20 million dollars for investment without resorting to loans. Well, the loans have to be repaid, and as a result, a team of “effective managers” is immediately sent to the newly privatized enterprise that has come into his ownership, who begin to suck out money like a vacuum cleaner in order to quickly “recoup” the funds invested in the acquisition... with understandable consequences for enterprises. Loans are immediately attached to it, which are then withdrawn; there is still not enough money in circulation, and in the end the question comes down not to development, but to survival. How to survive? This is where staff reductions begin, etc. etc. It goes without saying that no increase in efficiency can be expected from such privatization.

To the great regret of the author of this article, he is forced to admit: the bad thing is not even that the economic model of the Russian Federation is ineffective. The really bad thing is that the government of our country has long learned to exist and remain stable in the conditions of a permanent economic crisis, in which the economy of the Russian Federation has been experiencing for 26 years. And therefore our government does not have the slightest reason to change anything - it is quite happy with the current situation.

Of course, at some point a counterweight to the official economic doctrine had to be formed, and something like that is gradually appearing, and no longer at the level of “kitchen talk”: the inadmissibility of today’s course is indicated, for example, by a person like Sergei Yuryevich Glazyev, and he is still -after all, he is an adviser to the President of the Russian Federation. But one can hardly expect that his ideas will be perceived as a guide to action in the coming years - one, unfortunately, is not a warrior in the field, and who else in power shares his views?..

Global crisis. Beyond the obvious

The global problems facing humanity today can lead to the complete destruction of our civilization in the foreseeable future. Climate change, destruction of ecological systems, natural anomalies, uncontrolled rapid growth of the planet's population, endless armed conflicts, struggle for resources - all this leaves us with little chance of survival. What are the underlying causes of the global financial crisis? Many researchers believe that the culprit is a fundamental crisis of ideas, human motivation and the principles of our society. The authors offer new approaches to entrepreneurship and innovation, challenging us to change our thinking and core values. The book examines more progressive models of effective management, corporate culture and leadership. For a wide circle of caring readers. We are experiencing the largest crisis in human history. And the cause of this crisis is ourselves! Our civilization is on the verge of collapse because our way of life, political, economic and social principles have turned out to be destructive. Fear, greed, corruption, terrorist attacks, hunger, lack of natural resources, uncontrolled migration - these are just a few of the problems we are facing today. And in the future we will face even greater difficulties - natural disasters, global epidemics, the threat of using weapons of mass destruction, the consequences of uncontrolled population growth, the energy crisis, etc. Developed countries are too wasteful in consuming non-renewable resources, destroying the planet's vital ecosystems, while most of the world's population lives in poverty, without any hope for the future. We try not to notice these problems, without thinking about what is there, beyond our “cozy little world.” But if you, the reader, are not indifferent to the future of our civilization, if you want to know what is happening in the world today, then this book is for you. This is the first attempt to give a forecast of events that await us in the near future. We are living in a period of transformation, so tomorrow will be very different from yesterday. The authors of the book talk about the main driving forces of the transformation process, showing how they influence key areas of our lives - society, religion, environment, science and technology, business and politics. In addition, they offer a completely new, effective approach to problem analysis based on the principles of creative solutions and strategic innovation. Leading experts from various fields from around the world also participated in the creation of the book, who have specific solutions to global problems that threaten the existence of our civilization. In order to survive, we need a new type of thinking and new principles of life, based on such universal human values ​​as cooperation and caring for others. "The financial crisis affects everyone today, but this is only one of the key global problems that the book is dedicated to. Climate change, environmental degradation, rapid population growth, poverty, terrorism and ongoing wars - our civilization is teetering on the brink. We must be aware of the existence of these problems in order to be psychologically prepared to cope with them, say authors Mario Reich and Simon Dolan, who invited 40 experts, “future thinkers,” as co-authors. Global world problems are presented extremely simply, and it is clearly visible how they are connected with our lives, with the lives of our children "The salvation of civilization depends on common efforts, the authors say. And they clearly show what each of us can do today." "Psychologies" magazine, July-August 2009

The significance of Russian socio-economic thought is determined by several aspects.

1) The relationship between the level of development of capitalist forms of production and the state of socio-economic thought is not simple and rigid.

Special cases and exceptions may apply. The genius of Chernyshevsky, who was able to rise to the heights of contemporary European science in the conditions of serf Russia, is the most striking example. In some areas, in particular on the issue of economics and the social role of the peasant community, Russian thinkers made important contributions to world science.

2) Russian thought considers a question that has worried both Russians and Europeans since the time of Peter I. This question is the historical fate of Russia, the question of Russia’s relationship to the European West, the mutual influence of Russia and the West.

3) Studying the views of Russian thinkers of the 19th century. Helps to better understand what happened in our country in the 20th century.

The best representatives of Russian science adhered to the traditions of Adam Smith and Ricardo and were thus already prepared to accept the teachings of Marx.

8.1. Economic ideas in Russia in the 17th – 18th centuries.

In the 17th century Russia entered a new period of its development: the remnants of fragmentation were eliminated, the Russian centralized state was strengthened; the policy of enslavement of the peasants was completed in the Council of 1649; an all-Russian market was being formed, the merchant class was becoming numerous; manufactories appear

and large shopping centers; Market production is increasing, although small-scale production still dominates.

All this was reflected in Russian economic thought: progressive thinkers began to understand and justify the need to eliminate the country’s economic backwardness and strengthen its independence. They saw ways to solve these problems in the creation of a large domestic industry, the development of domestic and foreign trade,

creation of its own fleet, communications, development of agricultural production, reorganization of the financial system.

The most prominent exponent of the new direction of Russian economic thought of the second half of the 17th century. was a statesman, politician and diplomat A.L. OrdynNashchekin (1605 – 1680).

The New Trade Charter he issued in 1667 regulated trade duties. The document was written in the spirit of mercantilism, permeated with the desire to attract gold and silver to the country; patronage of domestic trade and merchants to ensure a positive trade balance.

The backwardness of Russia from Western European countries became especially noticeable at the end of the 17th century. Reforms were needed, which Peter I soon carried out. They covered the state apparatus, army, navy, military affairs, and economic life. The original economist of that time was Ivan Tikhonovich Pososhkov (1652 - 1726).

Pososhkov’s work “On Poverty and Wealth” was written in 1724. It does not contain the identification of wealth with money, which is characteristic of representatives of Western European mercantilism. He believed that the wealth of society is embodied not only in gold and silver, but also in material goods. Pososhkov distinguishes between material and immaterial wealth.

By material he understood the wealth of the state (treasury) and the wealth of the people, by immaterial - legality, effective governance of the country.

Pososhkov's main idea:

The growth of national wealth is beneficial to both the people and the state.

To achieve wealth in a country, two conditions are of greatest importance:

1) destruction of idleness in all forms;

2) the strictest economy in everything, the fight against unproductive costs.

Pososhkov devotes a lot of attention to the development of Russian industry in his research. He wrote about the need to build iron ore, glass, and linen factories. Among the measures aimed at developing production, Pososhkov recommended building factories with state funds and transferring them to private hands; proposed to organize the encouragement and protection of invention; referring to wealth

country, proved the need for exploration of its subsoil; wrote about the protection of natural resources, fisheries and forests.

As a representative of the merchant class, Pososhkov devoted a lot of space to trade issues. He considered it necessary to import from abroad only what was not produced in Russia, naming such goods as salt, glassware, mirrors, hats, etc. The creation of Russia's own industry will make it possible not to import these goods and thereby save money in the country.

The main reason for the backwardness of the country's economic development, according to Alexander Nikolaevich Radishchev (1749 - 1802), was serfdom. His anti-serfdom sentiments were embodied in the book “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” (1790). The main political and economic work was his work “Letter on Chinese Bargaining”.

Developing the ideas of I. T. Pososhkov, Radishchev showed concern for the industrial development of the country. He considered it necessary to increase his own production of goods, increase their domestic consumption, and improve the people's well-being.

Radishchev did not exclude the development of manufactories, although he did not see the advantages in large-scale production, and gave preference to small-scale production, peasant crafts based on the personal labor of free entrepreneurs. If Radishchev recommended free development for domestic trade, then for foreign trade he considered it necessary to carry out protectionist policies on the part of the state.

Radishchev criticized the existing tax system in Russia, demanding the abolition of the poll tax and the establishment of an income and property tax. One of the representatives of the liberal nobility at the beginning of the 19th century was Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky (1772–1839), Secretary of State, first assistant to Alexander I.

Speransky's economic ideas are associated with the teachings of Smith and his followers. But he did not fully accept the concept of state non-interference in economic activities, believing that in Russia the state should patronize national industry. The 1803 note “On the structure of judicial and government institutions in Russia” contains a section on state economy, in which he considers ways to stimulate agriculture, manufacturing, commerce, and crafts. The customs tariff introduced by Speransky in 1810 was clearly

pronounced protective nature.

Speransky put forward deep and progressive ideas for his time in the field of finance and monetary circulation. He proposed replacing the natural labor duties of peasants with moderate cash taxes, believing that forced labor is low-productive and especially hateful for those who are forced.

Another representative of the liberal nobility was Nikolai Semenovich Mordvinov (1754 - 1845). Alexander I made Mordvinov the first Russian naval minister, chairman of the Department of Economy of the State Council.

Mordvinov accepted and developed many important principles of the teachings of A. Smith: freedom of private property, the beneficial role of competition, the need and benefit of the division of labor and the creation of a diversified economy, the worldwide involvement of the population in the sphere of productive labor, the limitation of luxury and unproductive labor, the emphasis on

accumulation of capital.

But, at the same time, Mordvinov rightly believed that Russia’s industrial growth was impossible without government intervention and without restrictions on the import of foreign industrial goods. Therefore, he advocated high import duties on

these goods, especially luxury goods, of which Russian imports largely consisted. Mordvinov's argumentation anticipated the conclusions of Friedrich List, who studied the problems of growth in lagging countries, by a quarter of a century.

With the collapse of the USSR, the country's new leadership began to take measures to radically change the economic sphere of society. The main innovation is large-scale privatization. By 1995, many owners had appeared in the state, holding a large number of enterprises in their hands.

In 2006, private owners already made up the majority of the country. Only 20% of the interest remained in the hands of the Government. Privatization of property continues to this day.

Historians distinguish two stages in the development of the Russian economy. The first is allocated to the years 1990-1998. These years have seen radical changes in the economic sphere, rapid rises in prices, a drop in investment, an increase in debt, and an increase in the budget deficit.

Experts believe that mistakes made during economic modernization are associated with a lack of experience in large-scale transformations and the inability of management to work effectively in market conditions. Entrepreneurship developed poorly, and government bodies were highly corrupt. All this created the conditions for the development of a severe crisis in 1998.

The second stage of economic development begins with the recovery from the crisis in 1999. Since that time, the country began to gradually overcome the economic downturn. The policy became tougher and more consistent, which helped ensure the stability of the federal budget, develop entrepreneurship in a market economy, and improve the financial situation of the population.

Now Russia is actively engaged in economic policy. All economic structures are quite developed. The country has strengthened its position in the interstate space. Modern Russia is directing all its efforts to the development of an innovative, high-tech economy.

Economic zones and leading industries

Each subject of the Russian Federation has its own pros and cons of economic development. The level of economy of individual territories depends on many factors, for example, the availability of raw materials and labor. Currently, Russia is divided into two main economic zones:

1. Western. It includes the European part of the state and the Urals. The zone is characterized by the presence of a huge amount of industrial production, but a lack of raw materials and resources.
2. Eastern. It consists of Siberia and the Far East. The economy in this zone is poorly developed, despite the fact that there are many resources for its development.

The economy of any country has its own structure. The Russian economic sphere consists of many industries. The leading role in modern times is assigned to industry. Within this industry, the extractive industries have achieved great success.

In addition to industry, trade, agriculture, construction, and transport are well developed. The non-productive sector of the economy is not left out either.

Disadvantages and problems of the economy

The economy throughout the existence of the Russian Federation was not ideal. There have always been, are and will be shortcomings that hinder the full development of this area.

The following negative aspects of the modern economy are noted:

• Weak influence of the state on the development of the private sector.
• Pronounced corruption of government agencies and illegality of their actions.
• Excessive monopolization, leading to rising prices and inflation.
• Unreasonable expenditures of budget funds by enterprises, banks and other institutions.
• Poor control in the tax area.

The problems listed are not exhaustive. This is just the main list of shortcomings of the Russian economy, which hinders the normal development of this area and the growth of the well-being of the country's population.