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. - at the Working Center for Economic Reforms under the Government of the Russian Federation, in 1995-1997. - Head of the Credit Policy Department of the Russian Ministry of Economy, 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 the 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 introduce national or other currencies in foreign trade?

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 resources 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 up private businesses. 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 systems, so there will almost certainly be no modern WTO. The modern system of 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 the 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 because world oil prices are falling (but, of course, not as significantly as oil prices), but the share of gasoline expenses in the family budget may increase. The main thing here is the size and prospects of this budget, not to mention the pricing policy of the gasoline business, or more precisely, of 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 sharp fall in shares on the New York Stock Exchange and the bankruptcy of the chief financier and president of the United Pacific Railway, Jay Cooke.

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: On October 19, 1987, the American stock index Dow Jones Industrial fell by 22.6 percent, following the American market, the markets of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong, South Korea, and many Latin American countries collapsed. 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 decline in the Asian stock market since World War II. 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 public 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.

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 United States, the base currency is the American dollar, 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. The First World War was 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 somewhere around 15%; if we take into account all kinds of economic indices and other influencing parameters, it will be 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 purchasing power parity. 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 wouldn't be the first US president to be assassinated for trying to eliminate a private central bank in the US. 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, primarily agriculture, was transferred there. 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 the existing structure of 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 rapid 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 by 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

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.

Six months before the August default of 1998, a report on the economic situation of the country landed on the desk of Russian President Boris Yeltsin. It stated: if economic policy is not urgently changed, the country will default by the end of summer - beginning of autumn. One of the authors of the report was Mikhail Khazin, Deputy Head of the Economic Department of the President of the Russian Federation. Then no one listened to his recommendations, and he was forced to leave his job.

But now, when the world economy is sinking deeper into the abyss of crisis, interest in Mikhail Khazin’s theory is growing rapidly. Back in 2003, he published the book “The Decline of the Dollar Empire and the End of the Pax Americana.” In it, the economist predicted the main features of the crisis that was inevitably going to grip the economy of the United States and then the whole world. Five years ago such predictions seemed fantastic, but now the forecasts of that time seem, on the contrary, to be overly optimistic.

-Those who predict that the crisis will end in 2009 simply do not want to answer to their people for their own incredible incompetence, stupidity and corruption. The crisis is just beginning. Remember the early 90s – it won’t be any better. Russia and Ukraine will face a sharp drop in living standards and even collapse: a more stable country will calmly digest them. For example, China can digest Siberia. This is an extremely unpleasant scenario, but we must be aware that it is the most likely.

March to the West. According to Mikhail Khazin’s forecasts, China is quite capable of surviving the current crisis. And even “bite off” part of Russia

Wasted work
Mikhail Khazin does not build his forecasts from scratch. The crisis theory he developed is based on two principles.

–The first of these was carefully developed by the political economy of the 19th century as part of the development of the labor theory of value. The fact is that the product of labor is distributed unevenly between labor and capital. Capital considers the product of labor as its private property, and, as a result, employees do not receive the necessary compensation for it. As a result, under capitalism demand grows slower than capital. This depreciates capital and reduces its efficiency
The second position of the theory is the role of the global division of labor. After all, scientific and technological progress is inevitably accompanied by a deepening of the processes of division of labor, and they, in turn, require an increase in the volume of sales markets.

The movement of any country along the path of scientific and technological development in the last 250 years required the expansion of markets for its products, that is, markets that it controlled. The number of technologically independent states has been constantly decreasing over the past two centuries. In Europe, back in the middle of the 19th century, there were a dozen truly independent states; by the beginning of the 20th century, there were only five left. In the middle of the last century, not only in Europe, but throughout the world there were only two truly independent states - the USSR and the USA. But as the processes of development of science and technology continued, these two world leaders had to face the problems of financing the next stage of scientific and technological progress by the last quarter of the previous century.

Star Wars
In parallel with the competition for sales markets, the struggle for markets for the export of capital also intensified. Having found no use for their money in their homeland, the capitalists exported it to still undeveloped territories - this policy was called “imperialism” at the end of the 19th century. According to Khazin’s theory, it was the struggle for markets that caused the First, and soon the Second, World War. But after the emergence of the USSR, and then the world system of socialism, the problem of “utilization” of excess capital became aggravated again. After all, the regions for the export of capital have been exhausted, and allowing a crisis of overproduction and, even more so, a third world war for the Western world would be suicide. Therefore, the efficiency of capital began to decline, and in the 70s, Western countries were hit by a deep crisis.
A way out of it was found by stimulating demand, both public and private. The most ambitious project was the Star Wars program, designed to protect the United States from attack by the USSR from space. Many considered it a bluff, but, nevertheless, new capacities for the production of goods and services were created to meet this artificial demand. Nowadays, the system created in the 80s is usually called “Reaganomics”, named after President Ronald Reagan. It was during this period that the total debt of American households began to grow rapidly, significantly faster than the growth of the economy as a whole. Periodic “bubbles” in financial markets played an important role in Reaganomics.

-The printing press worked non-stop, but inflation did not go beyond normal limits - it was delayed in the financial sector of the economy. “Bubbles” are precisely the form of manifestation of this inflation. For some time they managed to keep them under control, but in August last year, when the US authorities began to “deflate” the bubble in the real estate sector, something terrible happened - inflation broke through into the consumer and industrial sectors. And that's where it all started. Demand cannot constantly exceed the real income of the population, that is, received as wages. In the end, a reckoning came - it became impossible to maintain demand, and it began to fall and return to its natural state. And along with it, the American GDP.

The decline of consumption
Nevertheless, Mikhail Khazin believes that the cause of the current crisis is not the private mistakes of the American authorities or business, but the very nature of capitalism. According to Khazin, all this confirms the political economic analysis of the author of Capital, Karl Marx, who argued that crises of overproduction and the shocks they cause are an integral feature of the capitalist mode of production. True, if the ruling elites of the United States had correctly used the resources of the collapsed Soviet Union and its satellites, the crisis could have been delayed.

–They could, for example, pay off debts incurred in the 80s using resources received from the “capitalization” of the former socialist system. But greed got in the way. And now we need to change the basic development model, and how to do this is still unclear.

–Does the crisis mean that consumer civilization has come to the end of its existence?
–If by “consumer civilization” we mean the constant pumping of demand through the issuance of money, then yes, it fits. But we must understand that this pumping was a response to the very fact of the existence of the USSR - if it had not existed, the USSR would most likely have won the Cold War. And now there is no USSR - why spend extra money on the people?

–You wrote that to maintain the stability of the current model of the American economy, living on debt, $200–250 billion per month is needed.

-This was the case in 2001-2002. Now significantly more is needed, since over the past ten years the global financial system has been greatly “inflated” and all its elements need to be supported. In a normal situation, participants in the financial system must “transfer” money to each other. But since trust has been lost, all participants in the former credit chains have to give money separately. As a result, much more of them are needed - we described the situation for a normally functioning financial system. And such an influx can only be ensured by continuing emission, which, in turn, causes inflation and depreciates the value of invested funds. By the way, you need to understand that the United States raised aggregate demand for the entire world economy and, as a result, it will all fall into crisis. Its scale is approximately known - at least a 30% drop in US GDP and a 20% drop in the global economy. But in reality there will be more - this is the minimum estimate.

The path of the catch-up
The collapse of the American economy and the fall of the dollar as a world currency could have the most tragic consequences for Ukraine and Russia, the economist believes. And the IMF loan in the amount of 16 billion, which Ukraine should receive, will not help it get out of the crisis.

–The Fund provides funds exclusively in the interests of international capital to those groups that they have introduced into the leadership of certain countries. We had the same thing, and the consequences will be the same - destruction of the remnants of the economy and a drop in the standard of living of the population.

Mikhail Khazin says that the existence of the current system deprives the so-called developing countries of the future, which are doomed to remain poor.

–Resources are needed by the rich countries of the “golden billion”. They also need markets, so they are interested in preserving the backwardness and dependence of developing countries. In the entire history of success, only two countries have achieved success on the path of catching-up development: the Soviet Union and China. The USSR was destroyed, largely due to the weakness of its later elite, and China can now jump out of the crisis.

As for Ukraine and Russia, Mikhail Khazin sees two scenarios for the near future for them. The first option is “wild” capitalism in the style of the post-Soviet 90s, the second is the Swedish-German option, only much more “socialist”.

“However, if you nationalize half of the country’s financial system, then this wealth needs to be managed. Managing nationalized enterprises using capitalist methods means running into total theft and corruption. This means that we either need to sell everything again, or change management methods to socialist ones, which are precisely intended for such cases. What do you like best? Especially when you consider that there will be virtually no private investment in the coming decades - only state and semi-state investments. Moreover, current elites will fiercely resist such reforms around the world. I do not rule out that we will face very acute internal political conflicts in a variety of countries.

Mikhail KHAZIN: “In three years, most of our oligarchs will go bankrupt”

About five years ago I was in charge of culture at Komsomolskaya Pravda. Publishers sent new products in the hope of a newspaper review. While sorting out another batch of waste paper, I discovered the book “The Decline of the Dollar Empire and the End of the Pax Americana.” Out of surprise, I remember I even rubbed my eyes. This is pure madness to encroach on the foundations of the world order, the free market, at the beginning of the 21st century! Maybe, by mistake, old stuff from Brezhnev's times was mixed in? Soviet Americanist propagandists loved to bury this very Americana. No, it’s recent, published in 2003. And the authors are not Zyuganov and Anpilov, but a certain Khazin. Out of curiosity, I leafed through the sedition. The arguments seemed convincing. I gave it to our economic observer Zhenya Anisimov. Zhenya then wrote a review, and did a long interview with the author in Komsomolskaya Pravda (the first, by the way, in the mass press). Since then, I remembered that there is such a smart economist Mikhail Khazin. I have been following his performances all these years. Khazin was true to himself: screw America! Now that his fantastic forecast began to come true, I asked for an interview.

For forecasting a default they were fired from the Kremlin!

Mikhail Leonidovich, admit it, with what high-voltage current you were shocked and enlightened about the global financial crisis?

There was no insight. I came to the forecast gradually. In the spring of 1997, the Economic Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation was created in the Kremlin. I was appointed deputy chief. The first task is a report to Yeltsin on the economic situation in Russia. While working on the report, we realized: by the end of summer, beginning of autumn 1998, the country would default. Unless, of course, we urgently change economic policy.

Have you reported upstairs? How did they react there?

Yes, in general, no way. No one, except the deputy head of the administration Livshits and President Yeltsin himself, read this text. But Yeltsin himself treated us quite constructively, so I think he took this quite seriously then.

By the summer of 1998, we were finally expelled from the presidential administration. For attempts to stop a business project called “GKO - Currency Corridor.” This was the largest financial scam in all post-Soviet times. One and a half to two billion dollars a month floated to the West. For years! In August, as we warned, a default occurred. But by that time we were already unemployed. No one hired us as enemies of the people. Liberal. And we got serious about science.

Who are we?

Your humble servant and Oleg Vadimovich Grigoriev, former head of the Economic Department. We continued to investigate the reasons for the default. All traces led to the USA. Having become seriously interested in the structure of the American market, we discovered an amazing coincidence. Just as our GKO market sucked all the juice out of Russia, so their stock market is sucking out the resources of the entire planet. And the ending loomed the same.

In the summer of 2000, our article “Will the United States Achieve the Apocalypse” appeared in Expert magazine. Her conclusion: if by the spring of 1998 it was impossible to avoid a default in Russia, it would also be impossible to stop the problems of the American economy in 2000. Economist Kobyakov and I described the situation in more detail in the book “The Decline of the Dollar Empire and the End of Pax Americana,” already known to you.

How America has played the fool

This means that the States did not listen to the popular song of the group “Lube” during the perestroika era. Young Kolya Rastorguev warned: “Don’t be a fool, America!” But seriously, Mikhail Leonidovich, what is the reason for the beginning collapse? Now so many versions have been voiced - the devil himself can’t figure it out! Just let's talk without fancy terms like derivative. By God, many of our readers, like me, did not graduate from economic academies. But I want to figure it out.

I'll try. The economic model, because of which everything is now falling apart, arose as a response to the terrible crisis of the 70s. It was a crisis of excess capital. Even the classics of political economy of the 19th century wrote: capital grows faster than labor receives its compensation. The result is a problem with lack of demand. In classical capitalism, this is solved through crises of overproduction. Under imperialism - through the export of capital. By the 70s, both methods had exhausted themselves. It was impossible to create a crisis of overproduction due to the presence of the socialist system - it was scary. And there is nowhere to export capital. You won't be taken to the socialist camp! And India and China were not yet capital markets. The global situation, however, required the United States to move forward with scientific and technological progress. Otherwise, the West would have lost the war with the USSR. (There is reason to believe that he lost it in 73-74. But the USSR, alas, refused to force victory. Let’s not get distracted by this topic now. If interested, we can talk another time.)

The Carter administration and Fed Chairman Paul Volcker (Alan Greenspan's predecessor) developed a clever concept. For the first time in the history of capitalism, they began not to help capitalists alone, but to stimulate aggregate demand.

At whose expense was the banquet planned?

Through the issue of money.

Have you decided to start a printing press?

Absolutely right.

Now it finally dawned on me, Mikhail Leonidovich, why it was in those years that the Americans stopped backing the dollar with gold! All the reserves of yellow metal in Fort Knox would not be enough for a banquet. On green banknotes.

Almost so. More precisely, there was not enough gold even earlier; the default on the dollar was announced in 1971. But since there was no connection to gold, God himself ordered it to be used.

Let us, however, continue our educational program. In the early 80s, demand was mainly stimulated by the state - the Star Wars program. Since 1983, the emphasis has been on households.

Translated into colloquial Russian - into the average consumer, the ordinary citizen?

Yes. For a whole quarter of a century, households were given money through emission. More and more.

Credits?

Naturally. Due to excess demand, the States made the next round of scientific and technological progress. The USSR collapsed. Achieved many other good results.

But... This takeoff occurred at the expense of resources that were supposed to ensure growth in the future. The country has consumed its resources for two generations ahead. States accumulated debt. This is clearly visible if we compare the growth graphs of household debts and the total total US debt and US GDP. The economy grew at a rate of 2 - 3, maximum 4 percent per year. Sometimes it dropped into minus. Debts are constantly growing at a rate of 8 - 10 percent.

And let them grow. The Americans lived until now, did not grieve... Better than ours, by the way.

Indeed, by stimulating consumer demand, the Americans created a state with an extremely high standard of living. Generations of people have grown up who are not accustomed to living in poverty. Because they had an additional source of resources - loans. But you can’t live on borrowed money forever. The volume of debt has become too large, household debts have exceeded the size of the country's economy - more than $14 trillion. It's time to pay the bills. By the way, the GKO pyramid in Russia collapsed in exactly the same way in 1998. The scale of the country's budget has become insufficient to pay off the debts of state bonds. It all ended in default.

Of course, Wall Street was frantically trying to push back its collapse. I won’t go into detail about derivatives and other fictitious financial assets that you don’t like. Many people are now writing about this in detail, blaming them for the crisis. But this was just an attempt to breathe before death. Understand the main thing, Evgeniy: fictitious means there is no real final demand for them. They can be exchanged as much as you like between two financial institutions. But you can’t sell it to a specific person. And the engine of the economy is final demand. Represented by the consumer or the state. This is a fundamental thing.

What to do? There are two options. The first is to stop emission, that is, turn off the printing press. And improve the economy. But in this case, all financial assets - trillions and trillions of dollars - will instantly depreciate. The entire financial system will collapse. This is a version of 1929, the Great American Depression. But already on a planetary scale. For the dollar is still the main world currency.

Option two is to create hyperinflation. So that debts are burned. The idea is wonderful. In fact, this is what they are doing now. Roughly speaking, you owe someone 100 rubles, and inflation in the country is 100 percent. After a year, your debt turns into 50 rubles in fixed prices, after two - into 25. And after a few more years, you can completely forget about this debt.

Here is a concrete example from life. There was Gorbachev’s decision to allocate 12 acres of land to the people and a loan from Sberbank to build a house. My friends, a husband and wife, took out two shares of land, loans, and bought building materials. We built the house ourselves. And in 1993 they calmly returned the loan to the bank. In nominal terms it remained the same, but in fact at that time it was less than a month’s salary. But an hour's drive from Moscow they have a nice house and a large plot.

The problem in America, however, is that since 1981, capacity has been built to meet the growing demand provoked. Producing both goods and services. And no matter what option Wall Street chooses now, hyperinflation or turning off the printing press, demand will inevitably fall. What to do with these capacities?

In 2000, we calculated how much of the American economy would disappear. At that time - a quarter. Today is the third. If not more.

This is not just a lot, it is an incredible amount! What does it mean to destroy at least a quarter of the economy? This is a furious increase in unemployment, a terrible depression, a sharp increase in the social burden on the budget and social tension in society. Etc. During the Great Depression, US production fell by a third and consumption by 50 percent. Now consumption may decline even further.

That is why the United States is now jumping out of its pants, doing everything to prevent this part of the economy from disappearing. They stimulate banks, production... And still, in 2-3 years, or even earlier, America will receive a crisis on the scale of the Great Depression.

So now we see more flowers?

Of course, this is the very beginning. Of course, they can’t talk about this out loud. They will now pretend that everything is fine. And it will be even better. They will begin to look for reasons why this happened. Look for the extreme. This is why there is fear of major terrorist attacks. Similar to what they organized in 2001.

Come on, Mikhail Leonidovich!

In troubled times, it is necessary to change the psychology of society, to unite it. The best way is a threat. This is not the first time for the USA. In 1898, to start a war with Spain, which resulted in them taking the Philippines and Cuba from it, the Americans blew up their own battleship Maine in the Panama roadstead. In 1941 there was Pearl Harbor.

What, they also bombed this base themselves?

Bombed by the Japanese. But the US leadership knew about the upcoming raid. However, it allowed an attack. There was a desperate need to change the mood of society from isolationism (America is far away, the enemy won’t reach you!) to a policy of expansion. Only all aircraft carriers were withdrawn from Pearl Harbor in advance. I don’t feel sorry for the soldiers! The tragedy of Pearl Harbor really plowed America...

In the early 60s - the famous incident in the Gulf of Tonkin. To get into Vietnam, the Americans blew up their own cruiser. This is the norm for them, that’s the way they are built.

On September 10, 2001, on the forum on the Expert magazine website, I warned that the Americans would soon organize major terrorist attacks against themselves and blame everything on Osama bin Laden. There are still links to this message on the Internet, although about two years ago “Expert” reorganized its website and the message itself can no longer be found there.

Cool! The next day the Twin Towers were blown up. Where does this foresight come from?
- They had no time left. Economic indicators for August in the US were very bad. I would have to explain myself. Remember, after the terrorist attack they closed the exchange for several days. Distracted attention. And most importantly, under these terrorist attacks they finally abandoned liberal methods of economic management and began the transition to pure dirigisme. That is, to direct control of the economy by the state and the Federal Reserve System.

So, it was not for nothing that the World Trade Center was targeted?

Well, of course it was a symbol.

But isn’t it all too simple, Mikhail Leonidovich? They failed August and staged a terrorist attack in September? Provocation on a global scale requires long preparation.

So she went on for a long time. A crisis was brewing. “Black August” only pushed the deadline forward. Crisis phenomena began in the 90s. As a matter of fact, a careful study of economic processes, which we will not go into because it will not be interesting to the reader, shows that the “point of no return” was most likely passed at the border between Clinton’s first and second terms.

SAY A WORD FOR POOR BUSH!

But they say Bush Jr. is to blame for everything. Not in the explosion, of course, but in the fact that it brought the richest country to the brink. Our fashionable economic analyst Yulia Latynina even called the outgoing US President Leonid Ilyich Bush.

Nonsense. Of course, Bush should be criticized; he has done a lot of bad things. For example, in 8 years I still haven’t understood what’s going on. However, the crisis could have broken out back in the 80s. They miraculously held on in '87. Then they jumped out due to the collapse of the USSR and the seizure of the markets that we controlled. They had great happiness. But at the end of the 90s there was a storm again. Even before Bush came.

If in the early 90s the United States had directed the resources seized from the territory of the former socialist countries to pay off its debts incurred in the 80s, it would have been possible to stretch out the happiness for 30 years. But instead, they incurred new debts! That is, they accelerated the process. In this sense, I repeat once again, the real culprit of the current crisis, the last person who could avoid it, or rather, push it back, was Clinton. Bush came to a ready-made crisis. He was trying to do something. I changed the remaining monetary methods to direct control, tightened regulation, etc. But it was too late. The locomotive was rushing at full speed. So Clinton and his kleptomaniac administration in the person of Rubin, Summers and other figures are to blame.

The crisis began in America. Over the ocean. But why did the whole world tremble?

The dollar is not just the world's reserve and trade (now about 70% of international transactions in dollars) currency, but also, after 1971, a single measure of value.

Consider one more important thing. The modern economic model, built on the dollar as the main world currency, has led to America playing a unique role in the world economy. It produces about 20 percent of global GDP. (The total is about 60 trillion dollars. The real share of the United States is 12 trillion, that is, a fifth. Although the United States itself writes that it is 14, this figure should not be trusted.) And it consumes about 40 percent of world GDP. Almost twice as much. Based on purchasing power parity, of course. Because they buy cheap and sell at their own prices at high prices. As a result, they suck resources from all over the world like a vacuum cleaner.

Negro Obama will answer for everything!

The destruction of this system will lead to the fact that the standard of living in the United States will fall. At least twice. There has never been a case in history where a drop in living standards on such a scale did not lead to the destruction of the socio-political system of the state. It is clear that the current US political elite is doing everything to avoid losing power. That's what we see.

Personally, I don’t see it, to be honest. A normal election campaign is underway.

Don’t you think it’s suspicious the appearance of such a strange character for the entire previous history of the United States as Obama? It's not even strange that he's a black man. Negro, well, thank God...

African American, do you want to say, Mikhail Leonidovich?

No, sorry! Afro is purely American, politically correct. And in Russian - Negro. In Russian, the word “negro” is not emotionally charged and is not a curse word. I've explained this many times. Including on the streets of Washington. Because he spoke Russian. And now I’m giving an interview to a Russian newspaper.

The strange thing about Obama is that he is not at all rooted in the American establishment. He has a strange mother, a strange father... Obama is, in a sense, a made character. Someone pulled it out and is moving it.

If i knew! Although it would be very interesting to know. Obama's rival McCain is also a specific character, although he represents the highest American establishment in the fourth generation. McCain is many years old, first of all. Secondly, he is severely broken mentally. Captivity in Vietnam is not in vain. Fierce hatred could not help but remain in him. But in politics there is fierce hatred and emotions get in the way. A politician must be cold and cynical.

Rice. Valentina DRUZHININA.

What are you getting at, Mikhail Leonidovich?

The American elite understands perfectly well that the next administration will most likely not survive until the end of its term. After all, she will have to make very tough, unpopular decisions in the economy. It makes no sense to put an intelligent president from one’s own circle in the White House. I feel sorry for the man, and besides, he won’t be able to really do anything anyway. You need a character whom you don’t feel sorry for, so that you can then blame everything on him.

What about democratic elections?

Democracy is a mechanism for selling any major decision to the people. The elite will have to sell extremely unpopular solutions in a crisis. The only way is to pull out the charismatic. In America, the president, for your information, is not elected by the people. Charismatic Obama will do some terrible things for the elite. Then he will be swept away by the indignant masses. And politicians will blame everything on him. In short, this is a political suicide bomber who must close the embrasure.

Or a scapegoat.

One could say so.

Does Obama himself understand his role?

These are his personal problems. We would like to sort things out with our people in the near future.

But political scientists are making predictions about an “October surprise” from the same bin Laden at the final stage of the race, which, they say, will change the balance of power and help the Republicans stay in power. This fits into your concept of provocation.

If the gap between Obama and McCain had been small, the Republicans could have taken drastic steps on the eve of the elections like...

- ...war in Iran?

No, Iran is definitely cancelled. And, relatively speaking, an explosion of a nuclear power plant a la Chernobyl in France. But it is already absolutely clear that Obama will win and explosions will not change anything.

Now the curiosity with the McCain headquarters asking for money for the elections from the Russian embassy is clear. Conscious setup. McCain is simply being dumped. The Republicans seem to be closing up shop and getting out of the game. It was not by chance that the former Secretary of State of the Bush Cabinet, the authoritative Colin Powell, stuck a knife in the back of the Republicans, recently declaring that he would vote for Obama. And he called him an important transitional figure.

That's what I've been talking about for a long time - a transitional figure. One good thing is that there will be no more provocations before the elections.

And what will happen after, Mikhail Leonidovich? How will the global crisis develop?

The acute stage of the global crisis, I repeat, has already begun. If the United States stops issuing, stops printing dollars altogether, everything will collapse within 2-3 months. We will get the 1929 version. They will print money, but at a minimum - the fall will take 2.5 - 3 years. They will create hyperinflation, turn on the machine at full power - everything will be completed in a year and a half.

In your opinion, which of the three options will the States choose? Or have you already chosen?

The third is hyperinflation. But after the elections on November 4 (more precisely, after the change of president), policy changes are possible.

However, no matter which option they choose, the US economy will shrink by at least a third as a result. The world will fall by 20 percent. After this, the planet will face 10-12 years of severe depression. In the USA and Europe, I think many will live from hand to mouth. And the car will become a luxury item.

Gloomy picture...

THE GHOST RETURNED TO RUSSIA. THE GHOST OF SOCIALISM.

In Russia she could have been more optimistic, I won’t hide it. We have cheap raw materials, our own oil, gas, etc. But, unfortunately, the idiotic policy of our financial authorities, which did not allow domestic enterprises to receive cheap loans, led to the fact that our production largely died out. In 1998, we were able to very quickly jump out of default due to what? Capacities that had been mothballed since Soviet times were put into operation. Plus, the foreign economic situation has improved sharply. Oil prices soared. Now there will be no foreign economic situation - there is a crisis. And there are no relatives’ capacities. It is impossible to build them. There will be little demand. And they will try to overwhelm us with cheap imported goods. We will have to close the border and completely worsen the consumption structure. Or get money somewhere. Import costs money, but citizens will not have it. In Moscow alone, unemployment will amount to 2.5 - 3 million people. Some of them are low-paid workers, primarily guest workers. This will increase crime and cause a lot of other troubles. Imagine a million, well, even half a million Tajiks and Uzbeks who do not have permanent housing and have lost a permanent source of income. They will run around the capital and grab everything that is bad. Specific tough measures will be required. At least for deportation. But we know that our authorities are not capable of doing this. Gangs will be formed from the most frostbitten ones. They will deliberately rob and pay off any police with bribes. Plus two million unemployed so-called “office plankton”. This is generally a difficult case. Young people accustomed to receiving thousands of dollars simply for the fact of their existence. And now they will be kicked out. Everyone has mortgage debts, loans for cars, and other goods. How will they repay their debts? Banks will have problems. Taking away apartments for debts? Yes, they will destroy all of Moscow! And layoffs have already begun.

Well, don’t scare me like that, Mikhail Leonidovich! The country's leadership is taking serious measures to minimize the consequences of the global crisis. It allocates billions. We hear about this every day on TV.

If all the money arrives as intended, we will last until spring. And there you can plant potatoes. But if everything is stolen, as is, alas, customary here, then problems will begin in the winter. And serious. As for the authorities... Apparently, in recent weeks there has been a radical change in the psychology of the country's leaders. For many years they were under the illusion that there would be enough money for everything. The petrodollars alone are worth it! And suddenly it turned out that not only was there not enough money, there was incredibly little of it! And it’s not even clear how to plug the holes that already exist. Everyone comes to power with an outstretched hand. Pay attention to official messages. Retailers - large retail chains - are asking for 50 billion. Otherwise they won't survive. Oil workers also want 50 billion. Banks 50 billion before the new year. And there we need more. Agriculture is already asking for 100 billion. Otherwise, they say, we won’t sow. The auto industry, however, is asking for a mere trifle - a billion. But he also asks. Citizens, they say, do not buy our cars because of lack of money, warehouses are overcrowded, the conveyor cannot be stopped, people will not understand... And the oligarchs are in a panic. And the worst thing is that their accounts in the West are also beginning to disappear. The oligarchs have already realized that only the state can protect them. And they also whine about billions.

I was recently told how a group of oligarchs came to the government to ask for money as collateral for their enterprises. Those enterprises that in the dashing 90s they themselves took from the state for next to nothing at loans-for-shares auctions. Wonderful are your works, Lord!

Everything is clear with the oligarchs. I'm not sure that the vast majority of them will remain in 3 - 4 years.

Will they go to prison?

They'll go broke.

True, some of our analysts see in state assistance the upcoming nationalization of the same enterprises and banks. The specter of socialism looms.

I'm imagining that I need to be baptized! Socialism is not primarily nationalization, but a socialist method of managing the national economy. In our country they are trying to nationalize under capitalist methods of management. Nothing but total theft will come of this.

Since you, as I see it, are a supporter of conspiracy theories, comment on the hints of TV star Vladimir Solovyov, as if the current crisis was specially organized to teach Russia, which has risen from its knees, a lesson. That’s why oil prices dropped, like in 1989.

I am a principled opponent of conspiracy theories. I’m just trying to understand a little how everything works here. As for Solovyov, this is just nonsense. If only because the causes of the current crisis have been discussed many years ago. Only the authorities ignored these discussions.

ICELAND - BIG "MMM"

Explain the incident with Iceland. Until recently, it was considered one of the richest countries in the world, convenient for living. And suddenly she walked through the world with her hand outstretched. Here, they say, how bad it turned out. The hardworking country of geysers became the first victim of the global crisis. But I found an interesting message. It turns out that the German Schiller Institute, which closely monitors the spread of the crisis around the world, recorded a very important, or rather alarming, indicator back in the summer - “the laundering machine Iceland has closed its shop.”

As the global financial system collapses, its fundamental mechanisms gradually cease to function. First, the US investment banking system. The system of rating (that is, assessing) financial risks does not work. The insurance system is on the verge of collapse. It’s the turn of offshore companies, i.e. the capital laundering system. Iceland is not a country with a conventional economy. It's just a bank with the name of the country. The volume of banking assets here was 10 times greater than GDP. Sorry, this was not an ordinary bank. Remember, in the 90s, some of our banks promised 20 - 30 percent per annum. Where are they now? Iceland had the highest discount rate in the world. 15 percent. Pure pyramid. Everyone brought money there. Sooner or later, financial pyramids collapse. Consider Iceland to be "MMM".

Is Iceland the first sign in the system of global offshores, so beloved by Russian nouveau riche? Or will it all be limited to that?

I think that problems will begin for all offshore companies.

Then why is Russia going to help the collapsed Icelandic pyramid with a loan of 4 billion dollars? Don't the chickens peck at money itself? For prestige, they say, we stand firmly on our feet? To wipe the nose of the West? Or, in the hope that Iceland will give us a former NATO military base, vote against Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO?

Can I answer off the record?

For print only, Mikhail Leonidovich.

Then let's say this. There is a suspicion that we are helping for a reason. Some of our big people decided to earn money there and play a repo operation. And he didn’t take into account that a crisis had begun. Now he needs to be rescued. In order not to lose a blocking stake in a large Russian state company. Don’t ask for names or appearances, draw your own conclusions. And even if this version is not true, the very fact of its appearance and widespread distribution speaks for itself.

CHINA IS LIKE CHAPAI. DOESN'T KNOW LANGUAGES.

Soros recently said that China will emerge victorious from the global financial crisis.

I wouldn't say that. And that's why. The West, like the USSR, in the past was the bearer of a global project. There is a concept for managing the global economy.

World domination, in short?

Yes. China does not have such a concept. This is a purely national project. For this reason, the Chinese are actually shirking attempts to take responsibility for the world situation into their own hands. Exactly because they do not have a model for governing the world. Philosophical model. They can control China, increase its power and sphere of influence. That's all. This is the difference between the psychology of the Chinese and the Russians, representatives of the West. This is a fundamental thing. Do you remember Petka asking Vasily Ivanovich if he could command on a global scale?

No, Petka, I don’t know any languages.

So China, figuratively speaking, does not know languages. He can command a regiment, a division, an army... Nothing more.

And at the end, allow me a personal question. What measures are you taking yourself to, in official terms, minimize the consequences of the crisis you predicted?

I don't have such problems. My salary is only growing because I am a recognized expert on the crisis. But I don’t have and never have had large capital that needs to be saved. I can give only one general piece of advice to Komsomolskaya Pravda readers: realize that bad times are here to stay. And live further based on this understanding.

P.S. I understand that to many readers Khazin’s thoughts will seem like pure fantasy, conspiracy theories, or even nonsense. I really want to not believe him. Especially about bad times that are serious and long lasting. I confess, too. But... I actually held his book about the financial collapse of America in my hands 5 years ago. Now that fantasy is really coming true. And in the West, books have been written and films have been made about the American provocation of September 11, 2001. True, after the explosions. And the explanations are primitive - a terrorist attack was required to capture Iraq.

During our two-hour conversation, I noted the main thing. Despite the gloomy forecasts about long bad times, Khazin himself is an optimist. Smiles a lot and jokes. Let us also be optimists! This helps you survive at any time. And forewarned means forearmed.

Those who want to learn more about Khazin’s opinions and forecasts about the situation are welcome to his website

Well, with my naive questions about the crisis I go to another authoritative economist, academician Sergei GLAZYEV. Read the interview tomorrow in Komsomolskaya Pravda.