ONE OF THE LEADING RUSSIAN ECONOMISTS TOLD BUSINESS ONLINE ABOUT WHY OIL WILL BE CHEAP FOR ANOTHER 14 YEARS

A well-known economist Oleg Grigoriev, one of the creators of the theory of the current economic crisis, and a former head of the economic department of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation, presented his new book, which claims to be Karl Marx's "Capital", in mid-December in the editorial office of BUSINESS Online. The text of the conversation, which we are publishing today, contains deeply substantiated and, at the same time, the most unexpected conclusions about what awaits the Russian and world economy in the coming months and years.

“TO MAKE A BOOK GET BEYOND THE KREMLIN WALLS, IT IS EASY FOR ME”

Oleg Vadimovich, is it possible to say that today not a single economic theory in the world explains what is happening?

Yes, none of them explains... This gives rise to fears, throwing.

- But in Russia there was such a theory. So?

Yes, in Russia it is.

And she explains what's going on. You came to BUSINESS Online two and a half years ago and already then you applied for a fundamental theory, a new Karl Marx, right?

Then everything didn’t come together for me to the end ... But it came together only somewhere in May. So in May I said: all the guys, I know, I see the end of the book. And he wrote, wrote, wrote... This book is really not one of a number of similar ones. I put it on a par with Marx's Capital, the books of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jevons or Menger, Marshall. This is work with ambitions of the same level. (This is about new book by Oleg Grigoriev “The Age of Growth. Lectures on neoconomics. The Rise and Fall of the World Economic System”, excerpts were in “BUSINESS Online” - ed.)

- See where Koshchei's needle is? What to do? What's happening?

From the point of view of my theory, you can define a certain safe level when you can look at and understand the goals. Actually, we're busy with it right now. There is a general scheme, we now want to put it on real numbers so that it is simply considered. There are still, of course, their own theoretical problems, but, by the way, they have been largely overcome. And this is the level from which you can already move on to numbers, from my point of view.

Do you think the ideas of your book, of all your work will break through the Kremlin walls? And how much time will it take?

Well, it's not difficult for me to make sure that the book gets behind the Kremlin walls.

But will they read your book? And besides theory, do you have a plan of what to do? What can you suggest based on your theory? How to save Russia?

Complex issue. Because it's pointless to make a plan. Because whether you do economics or don't, the whole problem still rests on the structure of the state apparatus. Even if some brilliant economist appears who calculates everything exactly, even this will be pointless. Even if he can develop a brilliant plan, there will be no one to implement it.

- When did you come to this opinion?

When I myself worked in the state apparatus in the 90s.

- Already then the state apparatus was of such a quality that it was useless to do anything?

The question is not in quality, but in the structure of the state apparatus. Here, Minister of Economic Development Nabiullina writes threatening letters to the Central Bank stating that the Central Bank's policy is not conducive to economic growth. And Ulyukaev answers her. Switched places. And now Ulyukaev is writing the same letters that Nabiullina wrote, only now addressed to her. And approximately even knows what she will answer. Because he already answered all this before. That is, they work out their roles.

The question is what do you believe. Do you have any economic theory that you think is correct? Or does your economic theory depend on where you sit? The Ministry of Economic Development has one theory, the central bank has another one... This is dictated by the very structure of the state apparatus, the system itself.

- Is there an understanding of how it should be?

This is our main goal, in fact, we are thinking and working on it. Please note that before the crisis I had no publications on the topic of the economy. I had notes about bureaucracy, I had a consulting analysis on the US, on Russia, and so on. He wrote a number of closed topics on the territorial empire, how it works. I didn't have a job in economics. I had an idea, I thought about it, read a lot, but worked on something else. The crisis came, and I thought that since the economy is clear, then at least this matter needs to be brought to an end.

- And what is the main problem of the state apparatus?

He is now unable to act effectively. We analyze how our laws are written. Thoughtlessly, encouraging incomprehensibly, inefficiently. Here, they say, there is a sphere of regulation, and everything should be fine in this sphere of regulation. And someone is responsible for one, two, three, four, five to ensure that everything is fine in this area. But infinitely beautiful is worth infinitely much. You tell me the measure of the beautiful and allocate funding for this measure! But you say, do it perfectly, and give 5 kopecks. Well, I'll spend these 5 kopecks on myself, because I won't achieve anything beautiful, but I'll be able to write a beautiful report. Here's what's going on...

Sits Kudrin (earlier, now sits Siluanov). Everyone wants endless funding and that's why everyone comes to Kudrin. Kudrin says: guys, I am also for everything beautiful, but I give so much money. And then everyone says: we would have done everything perfectly, but Kudrin does not give us. And if what he gave there is still not enough, you can put it in your pocket.

How to arrange a budget? How to tie him to the law? What should be the norms? These are the questions we want to answer. The goal is achievable and controllable. Then we will really catch any corruption and any theft. There is an example of such an organization in the world, the same military-technical programs in the United States that I studied, especially for our military-industrial complex. There is a lot done well and clearly. Experience is, it is necessary to study, look. We don't even think about it...

And if something is copied, it is completely thoughtless. They think that if everyone is forced to write a million pieces of paper, then something worthwhile will come of it. But the point is not a million pieces of paper, but whether we understand what we want to achieve, who is responsible for this and what is his responsibility.

THE “FAT YEARS” WAS BECAUSE THE AMERICANS PRINTED THE DOLLAR

Tell me what is happening in Russia now? What is your diagnosis? How did we get to this life? "Fat years" - and suddenly such a bummer.

- We had "fat years" because the Americans printed dollars, because there was a low rate, there was a high multiplication factor. Again, oil prices rose. Let's understand that the opinion that the Americans printed the dollar and plunged the world into a crisis, and we had an autonomous safe haven here, is nonsense. Everything is interconnected.

That is, the growth of the economy did not occur because we rebuilt our economy, because our people learned to work?

There are always some improvements, they will continue, some shifts are constantly taking place, but these are not “fat years”. In Tatarstan, even in the worst times, in 1994-1995, enterprises were built, new equipment was imported, a huge amount of investment was made in the same food industry, new confectionery factories appeared ... But at the same time, the decline continued. Something happens all the time, but it's not an indicator. One example shows nothing. Don't be American money printing... Let's remember the Asian crisis of 1997-1998...

- They say that the Americans “dropped” their crisis there?

What does "dropped" mean? When we understand what drives the global economy, everything is easy for us to understand. Who then was the US Secretary of the Treasury? Lawrence Summers. What idea did he have? A high budget deficit is bad, America must fight a high budget deficit, or better yet, pay off its debts. And now America begins to reduce the budget deficit, moreover, for two years the level of the American public debt has even been reduced. The “correct” policy that everyone prescribes. But at the same time, fewer dollars enter the world economy, and somewhere there is an Asian crisis that has slowly bypassed the entire peripheral world. It seems to be not entirely clear why. I ask you to pay attention to such things, they are all interconnected.

And then the “fat years” began, and so on. But what helped us all a lot in 2008? Paulson program, over $1.2 trillion in government spending. Other countries there also tried, such as China. But China has been dragging a trail of bad debt ever since. If the Americans had continued, the debts could have become good, but the Americans have stopped throwing in money, and the debts are getting bad, getting worse and worse.

When the Americans stopped throwing in dollars, we also fell under the hand, everything began to slow down here too. Someone shouted: “Something must be done!” But I repeat that there must be a driver. We have gigantic reserves of efficiency growth, but they are hidden in the structure of the state apparatus, which is completely not focused on doing anything efficiently. This is a separate issue. If there is a flow of money, then it is inefficient, but it works. The stream has stopped, it stops working.

"The Central Bank's MANAGEMENT - BUREAUCRATES"

- So what happened this year?

Let's take it in order. First: financial sanctions. Yes, they are quite painful, primarily the restriction of access to Western capital markets. And we must understand that there are announced sanctions, there are hidden sanctions. On the one hand, there is a direct ban on access, but this is for a few - 5 - 6 largest banks. But from the very beginning, a country risk arose, it is an plus of 1-2 percent to the cost of debts, that is, refinancing has become more expensive for everyone.

- Why can't we refinance in China? They have a huge amount of dollars, nowhere to put them.

There has been an outflow of capital from China for some time, China itself is short of dollars.

- All his trillions? With their reserves?

You understand what reserves are. One or two and they're done. We are now on the verge of reserves.

- But they have a positive trade balance, don't they? That is, they have dollars flowing in?

And they run, they run, they run...

- But it leaks less than it flows in.

In recent months it has been the other way around.

- That is, they themselves need currency?

They themselves need the currency, and therefore you can’t get credit from them.

- In general, we have nowhere to finance?

In fact, the situation, purely in terms of sanctions, is not very dangerous, there were and are calculations, they were carried out quite quickly. Actually, the sanctions themselves would cost us 40-42 rubles per dollar at a normal oil price.

But here we must immediately say that our two young ladies behaved disgustingly in the Central Bank. For me it was surprising, for some time I even defended them with excessive fervor. In March, when they had to act actively, they acted very correctly and consistently, well, carefully, there was a sequence of steps that gave meaningful results. The course twitched and stabilized ...

- But the situation was not so tough after all?

This is a matter of politics. I then analyzed. Unfortunately or fortunately, the global tasks for the Central Bank are set in the Kremlin. Then the task was simple: not to let the ruble fall at any cost, no attention was paid to the number of gold and foreign exchange reserves, because then it was believed that there were enough reserves. So the task was pretty simple. They threw in the money, we recalculate all the other parameters, and everything is fine. What happened when financial sanctions were introduced? The same Central Bank received in August the “number one” instruction: “Guys, you can’t spend more reserves like this. Your instrument is understandable, but you will reduce the intensity.” Because these 30 billion have significantly reduced the airbag. And the Central Bank immediately lowered the limit from one and a half billion to 350 million.

Second: apparently, they were told that 42 rubles suits us, suits the budget and all that. When the ruble slowly starts to fall, the Central Bank does not intervene. Moreover, when a meeting of the Central Bank on the rate is being prepared in September, the entire market is waiting for the Central Bank to react, at least by half a percentage point to raise the rate. The Central Bank decides to do nothing. That is, they were told: the rate is 40 - 42, but since the rate has not yet reached 40 rubles, we do nothing. That's when it comes to the line, then we will think.

But understand, when a certain trend develops, the entire financial system that supports it is built around it. When there is no trend yet, or it has not yet been determined, the Central Bank can control the situation. And when the system has taken shape, and the Central Bank says that it is time to react, it turns out that it is alone against everyone and has no tools. Reserves cannot be spent, they no longer react to the rate, because the market has developed a situation where you earn 100 percent per annum in a day, so your rate increase by two percent does not bother anyone at all.

The Central Bank lost the ruble out of control, at some point fell into a panic, again began to squander foreign exchange reserves. Everyone liked it, because it turns out that the Central Bank pays for any feast. There is a problem, here it manifested itself.

After all, Nabiullina is not a professional in the banking system, she did not work in a bank. A fool is not a fool, but she does not know the system from the inside.

We have a problem, all the leadership of the Central Bank are bureaucrats, and they make their careers as bureaucrats, their thinking is like that, they were told - they need to report. They do not feel the situation, the rate has not reached 40 - 42, so we do not move, who will ask us?

- They are more likely to be asked if you start throwing away dollars at 38.

That's right, they'll just ask. They know how to count in a bureaucratic way, according to a general model, and not like market players.

WHY DID THE DRAGING METHOD NOT WORK?

Isn't it possible to call traders and bankers and threaten: "I'm jailing you all, we'll revoke your license"? Or are they down?

No, what are the shares. Everyone uses everything, insiders, just everything in the dark.

- And they came to what they came to ...

Yes, things got out of hand. But then it got even worse. They followed the only possible strategy. After thinking, conferring, they followed the Draghi method ( - Italian economist, President of the European Central Bank since November 2011 -ed.), which he applied in Europe. You say: "Guys, I'm leaving and not announcing any policy, but I reserve the right to interfere in the market in any amount." It worked for Draghi, but this is also a rather complicated option, I myself don’t fully understand why it worked for Draghi, maybe the peculiarities of European psychology.

Because Draghi didn't give out insider information, and these people conferred like typical bureaucrats, all the information was known.

I think that in Europe everything was known. In general, it worked for Draghi, I already asked questions then. Yes, you are going to build an invisible firewall, use the "financial bazooka". But how will you apply it? "I'll intervene at any moment." To what extent, what goals will I set? And if for the set goal I need to bang 50 billion from the reserve, will I go for it? Because if I only have 30, then the currency speculators will receive a premium that they could not even dream of in their lives. You made everyone rich, and the situation only got worse. When they started to try, they threw a billion - a little knocked down. Gone - the rate began to rise again. Again they came, again a billion was thrown away - no impact at all.

When they tried it for the first time, it turned out that it didn’t work for them, and why? Because all the previous factors were superimposed by the factor of sharply falling oil prices.

“PUTIN, THE RUBLE AND A BARREL OF OIL MET. AND ALL ABOUT 60 "

- What awaits the Russian budget under these conditions? Will the devaluation compensate for the fall in oil prices?

In the summer, the Central Bank considered $60 per barrel as an option. I saw these calculations, they were made like this: we do not believe that the price will be 60 - 70 dollars, but for the sake of interest, we need to show this figure to everyone. Therefore, the calculations were made extremely inaccurately, on the knee. These were fake calculations, no one believed in them. No one really thought, neither the Central Bank, nor analysts, there was no calculation. Everyone was guided by an anecdote: “Putin, the ruble and a barrel of oil met. And all around 60. No one really counted, only now they started, I think, only by the New Year they will recalculate.

Now the “Kudrin scissors” will start working. We have all the budget calculations, pay attention, without taking into account these "scissors". The export duty will decrease. Everyone says: "Oil revenues to the budget will be the same, only recalculated at a higher rate." And the fact that with a 6-month lag the contract price for gas is falling? And the same thing happens there, no one sees it.

- That is, the budget of Russia will sag?

Certainly!

- Devaluation is not in plus, but in minus?

She is not at a disadvantage, but she is not able to compensate for everything. Once again, I will say that all the calculations so far are fake. There will be problems with the budget, everyone thinks without taking into account the “Kudrin scissors”, although they exist and their parameters are known. In the calculations that I saw, a lot of things are not taken into account.

- And will it not fall below the cost of production?

It will not fall, the cost price is now about 15 dollars. The price fell even below the cost price, all the same they traded what to do. Fees are going down. Again, according to the budget, who took into account the fall in imports? We have two main sources: export duties and customs duties, they have always been the most stable revenue sources of the budget. The budget will still fall on this. If you recalculate with such deviations, then there you need to take into account not 10 parameters, but 30 - 40. But no one has done this.

- Now we will live according to the budget adopted in the summer? It's generally funny. Will there be sequestration?

Yes, there will be sequestration, of course. Will spend the reserve fund. By the way, pay attention, when the Americans (this was also evident during the Asian crisis, and now) reduce the supply of dollars to the world economy, the world economy exists steadily for some time, because gold and foreign exchange reserves are being wasted, everyone starts spending previously accumulated dollars. There are no external revenues, internal ones are being spent, we will now begin to do the same. Technically, the NWF will not be spent, but it will be transferred from dollar-denominated securities that generate income to ruble-denominated securities. Formally, nothing will happen to the FNB, either in terms of magnitude or in any other way. But, in fact, we will lose part of our gold and foreign exchange reserves.

- And what ruble papers will it be transferred to?

Bonds of Russian Railways, Rosneft, they will come up with something else.

Finally, this money will be invested in the national economy, will work in the country's investment projects!

Yes, but only this will reduce our gold and foreign exchange reserves. We will spend the reserve funds, which are also, in fact, part of our gold reserves. This will happen in 2015, not only in our country, but in our country it will be the most intense, mainly due to sanctions and dependence on oil. This will also happen in most developing countries. They will spend their gold and foreign exchange reserves, the threat of internal crises in these countries will grow, because in the event of an outflow of capital, they will have nothing to protect their currency. The next step is the collapse of the currency. We did not wait for this, but they immediately banged the currency in order to save reserves. Who there predicted 90 rubles?

- Former Minister of Economy of Tatarstan Marat Safiullin.

That's how it will be, rush there. Now they are recalculating, I will look, this is a very large-scale task, someone is doing it more competently, someone less competently. This also prevents the Central Bank from making decisions about what to do. It turns out that you need to bang 50 billion, but they are not there, and you can’t stop either - this is even worse. Useless victim. The Central Bank would like to take control, but it does not even have guidelines.

So after all, 50 is not enough. If you add up all these factors: falling prices, the need to repay debts, the demand for the currency is huge, and it is not speculative, but quite real.

Speculative or non-speculative, in fact, it is not clear how the population is behaving now.

- Quiet?

You are greatly mistaken, in Moscow the currency in exchange offices was already running out.

- Moscow is the most pro-Western city, there are many sick people there.

Well, what does the pro-Western and sick have to do with it, Muscovites adhere to the right strategy. They are not nervous, they are just more informed, and they have something to change.

- Will the rate return to 40?

At such oil prices, this is even unrealistic. I think that the Central Bank is focused on returning the ruble to a wide corridor of 45-50, but rather to its upper limit.

- Can we still talk about this?

He can't think of anything else. There to fix, and it may even be an overbought ruble in the current objective situation. Here the task of the Central Bank is to take it under control. I say again: not 40 or 42, maybe there won’t be enough reserves there. Or indeed, as discussed, to make the discount rate of 20 percent.

- Then everything will crash...

Everything will collapse, including financial systems... A banking crisis, instantly. There are many parameters that need to be carefully calculated.

"2015 - THE YEAR OF THE FALL OF THE YUAN"

- What is happening with the global economy today?

Whether we like it or not, global economic trends are driven largely by one factor. In a broad sense, this is the economic policy of the United States of America, which is splitting in two: there is the policy of the US government, there is the policy of the FRS - the Federal Reserve System. These two policies do not coincide and are not really aligned, which also creates problems for the global economy. But in any case, without analyzing this factor, we cannot understand what is happening in general.

Let's get a look. The government of the United States reported this fiscal year, which they ended on October 1, a record low budget deficit in recent times, 2.8 percent of US GDP. However, it should be borne in mind that due to last year's government shutdown (stopping the work of the government), a significant part of the expenditures that should have been made in the last fiscal year were made in this, in the current fiscal year. You see, formally they refer to last year, but in fact, from an economic point of view, they have affected this year. And they had a significant impact, because this is a real stuffing of money. It was this circumstance that largely predetermined the fact that this year was more or less calm, at least in its first half. It was calm for the United States, it was relatively calm for emerging markets, and relatively calm for Europe.

Now the results of the budget cuts are starting to show, and look what's happening. Now everyone is revising forecasts for next year - the IMF, the World Bank - everyone who is involved in this, downward. Because everyone understands that there will be no inflow of fresh money into the economy. Accordingly, there will be no economic growth. It will be much smaller than it is.

Cutting costs is the policy of the US government. Now about the policy of the Fed. This year it coincided with the policy of the government, because since the end of last year, the reduction of the quantitative easing (QE) program has begun. In October, the program was completely discontinued. And now there is a big question about what the Federal Reserve will do, because many are waiting for it to start raising the rate. But it should be said right away: the Federal Reserve itself, according to my estimates, has not yet developed a strategy for itself for the next year.

- So the system has been in collapse for the last 10 years or not after all?

They themselves do not believe that they are in a collapse. They certainly understand that they are in a situation they have never been in before. Nevertheless, they believe that sooner or later they will cope with it if they behave correctly. And then economic growth will resume on its own, all the problems that were there will somehow be solved.

- And what impact does the reduction in the stuffing of money, which has been going on since 2008, have?

First, emerging economies are under attack. The currencies of all developing countries were in a fever. In February, the yuan even fell, and, as far as I understand, now everyone agrees in the forecast that it will fall next year. So next year is the year of the fall of the yuan - the strongest of the emerging currencies. I'm not talking about other currencies of developing countries, they have fallen very strongly against the dollar. In the same row and Russia. We somehow forget that the ruble began to weaken at the beginning of the year, along with all the others: the Indian currency and the Brazilian one fell.

14-YEAR OIL PRICE CYCLE

- Falling oil prices from the same series?

This is the second most important for us, perhaps the consequence. There are two factors here. There are fundamental, long-term factors. The fact is that there is a 14-year oil price cycle. It has been well seen for the last half century. 1960-1973 are low oil prices. They rose at the beginning of the period, but due to inflation in the 60s, in fact, they remained relatively low. 1973 - 1986 is a period of high oil prices. 1986 - 2000 - a period of low oil prices. We all already know this well, because both the collapse of the Soviet Union and the default of 1998 fell into this cycle. We add 14 years to 2000 and get 2014 - the end of the cycle of high oil prices.

This is due to the peculiarities of reproduction in the energy sector. During periods of high oil prices, production increases. The main material factor is drilling rigs and their number. Right now, the number of drilling rigs is the maximum for all periods. Oil prices may fall, but the installations will work until they start to fail. The same applies to deepwater oil platforms, now they are also at their maximum, and they will also be operated, despite the fall in oil prices.

This applies to the United States and China, where the number of drilling rigs has grown dramatically over the past decade, this applies to a number of other oil-producing states. That is, there are a lot of drilling rigs, they will work, they will produce oil, and even if the price of oil falls, this will only be reflected in a decrease in the number of drilling rigs in a few years. Then the price will start going up again. This is a long-term factor in the reproduction of the oil industry.

- And why the 14-year cycle? That is, technologies change, service life ...

It is necessary to take the service life of drilling rigs.

- Their service life is 14 years?

Not 14, in short. But this is just a fairly constant value. Until they start to fail, they will work.

- That is, the price reduction is for a long time?

Price reduction is fundamental.

- And up to what price per barrel?

You know, my personal opinion is this: the level of 65 is what is now, as it seems, approximately the equilibrium level. Most likely, in the initial period, the price will fall even lower, but eventually it will settle at $65 per barrel after some time. Then it will start to grow slowly, but only slowly. Once again: a period of low oil prices does not mean that they have been falling for the entire period. It's just that prices are lower than before.

- But why is the fall so sharp?

This is precisely because of the reduction of the quantitative easing program. And this applies not only to oil, but to all raw materials. All raw materials, with the exception of food, fell in price against the dollar.

- That is, speculative prices go astray?

There is no money to play for a raise. Because more long-term money is required, and these are much greater risks.

- What is the shale revolution then? Does it have or does it not affect oil prices?

There is a shale revolution. It created a demand for the production of drilling rigs that can be used for shale, but really for anything, it's not that important. So the question here is not about shale - demand was created.

- Not in America, so in another place would you rock?

Yes. This is just a geographical redistribution of oil production, and not a factor that affects the price level.

But the high cost of shale production is cited as a factor in curbing the fall in oil prices. Allegedly, the price will not fall below $70 per barrel, because then American companies will go bankrupt.

Sorry, you are using outdated data. Actually, complete data is available only for 2012, including the cost of shale production. As the situation now shows, since then in two years - this is precisely the meaning of the shale revolution - the cost price has fallen sharply. By the way, in the third quarter, American oil companies operating inside the US showed the highest level of profit in the last many, many years. This is already against the backdrop of falling prices.

Apparently, we will receive primary data only by the middle of next year, and complete data only a year later. But those who made calculations just by the level of profitability and other things, assume that in most fields, especially in new wells, the cost price has fallen to 40 - 50 dollars. In two years - from 70 to 40 - 50. But these are all just assumptions ...

- Not a bluff?

No. That is, of course, you can draw everything, but ...

- This applies to individual wells, but the average level can be higher, isn't it?

It is clear that on old wells, which are still made in the old way, the cost is still over 70, since capital expenditures have been made there. But these wells simply will not be developed, but will be switched to new ones, already with new conditions, with new technologies. I repeat once again, while no one knows for sure, the data is late. But, apparently, there has been quite a lot of progress.

- If everything is so obvious, why didn't any of the economists predict the fall in oil prices in advance?

I regret that sometimes I tend to compromise. The fact is that the reversal of oil prices from the point of view of technology has been visible for a long time. I am not engaged in technical analysis, but we have specialists, practicing traders, we consult with them constantly, including on forecasts. And they pointed out to me a long time ago that a reversal was ripe for the oil market.

But they spoke in two: either a fall in oil prices or an increase is possible. For example, they pointed to a reduction in the difference between WTI and Brent oil grades. And all the practitioners-traders argued that, most likely, this means that oil prices will rise. And only I, the goofy theoretician, said that my heart felt, they would fall. And therefore, without having come to a common opinion, they wrote in the forecasts that there would be a price movement, but a 50 percent probability that it was up, 50 percent that it was down. I admit that it is a shame that they made such a compromise.

Our consultant sent me graphs when we wrote the forecast for 2014, and then we argued all year until, in fact, the moment when it became clear where it went. He not only predicted himself, he is focused on the opinion of his colleagues, on the opinion of those with whom he communicates, because he occupies a fairly large position, communicates at all sorts of investment parties. And he brings not so much his own opinion as the opinion of the general financial community.

You see, everyone is infected with the Austrian school. The Austrian school shouts more than anyone that QE means inflation, that you just need to look for a place where inflation will strike. Seeing the possibility of a reversal, they unequivocally decided for themselves that since there should be inflation, then, most likely, it will go through oil. And that, since a reversal is ripe, he has nowhere to go, he will go up. And I had only theoretical considerations that have not yet been formulated to the end. It wasn't until I was finishing the book that they fully formed.

Kick, flight and payback concept

The forecast depends on the strategy of the Federal Reserve System. The Fed is now in a very difficult position. Why? They are expected to raise the rate after the QE reduction. The last time this happened was in 2007. This means that the dollar will further strengthen, for example, against the euro.

Where it leads? I saw data for October, it so happened that they were published on the same day by the States and Germany. For industrial orders, the United States is significantly below expectations, while Germany's expectations are significantly higher. That is, industrial orders leave the United States for Germany. This will soon be expressed in the fall of industry in the USA and in the possible growth of industry in Germany. And the Fed knows this, because they already discussed this problem at their last meeting.

And here it is, a corridor of opportunities: only you have achieved a not very significant - 1.24 - 1.25 kopecks - depreciation of the euro against the dollar, and a significant change is already taking place, a flow. The data on the US foreign trade balance is deteriorating, in general, everything is slowing down there.

- That is, the strengthening of the dollar hits the US economy?

Even a slight strengthening of the dollar, a slight shift, as it were, within a few months, can destroy all the positive results that they consider to be achieved. Once again, the Fed sees this, but the market is waiting for the rate to be raised. And from my point of view, in a good way, in the fall of 2015, the Fed should announce a new quantitative easing program. Although here I do not take into account the factor of the global decline in commodity prices.

- What are the expectations for a rate hike?

It is believed that the zero rate is not normal. Look, the unemployment rate has really fallen officially. Job creation data is on the rise. By the way, in October, if we count the initial applications for unemployment, they almost reached a historic low. The figure was - 266, and a historical minimum - 258 thousand initial applications for unemployment benefits, which was typical of a period of rapid growth. Then this indicator worsened, that is, it was just one week so successful, but it was! Now the indicator is kept at the level of about 300 thousand, but this is still considered the norm.

- In a word, what is your point of view, is the American economy recovering or not?

Let's put it this way: she's temporarily recovering. Why? Because there was actually a big injection of liquidity. In addition, thanks to the shale revolution, they managed to stabilize the foreign trade deficit. This local growth spurt associated with the action of local factors existed. But as soon as the dollar slightly strengthened on this basis, the whole trend went back. The deficit is growing, orders are leaving, and the Federal Reserve will have to decide on new quantitative easing. And they all expect a rate hike.

- There is a third solution: to cut off oxygen to Germany ...

You have to move somewhere. In fact, the solution is clear. It is comical in a way. Why Bernanke ( Ben Shalom Bernanke - Chairman of the Board of Governors of the US Federal Reserve from February 2006 to February 2014 -approx. ed.) and said that the policy of the Fed and the policy of the government are inconsistent. He wrote regularly, after each meeting, "little" to the government, to everyone in general, but also to the government: dear American government, why are you doing nonsense, reducing the budget deficit? For some abstract reason? I'm trying here, printing money, for what? In order to make loans for you cheaper than 2 percent, 2.5 percent, a penny. Now the cost of 10-year bonds is less than 2.5 percent. Print money, don't be afraid. Boost the economy as quickly as possible.

What is the source of the Fed and the current economic theory itself, the theory of crisis? That during a crisis, the economy needs to be given a good kick so that it takes off well from this kick, so that it can flap its own wings. And then she will work on her own. There will be a wave of growth, and due to this “free flight” you will recoup the costs of this very kick. And so Bernanke wrote: I see that you gave a small kick to the economy, although I am creating all the conditions for this.

Whoever reads my book will understand that such an idea is wrong. But let's just say it worked before.

- Since the 70s, right?

Yes, since the 70s. There was just a period when there are conditions for growth. How you interpret the result is another matter. No matter what you do, you will still grow one way or another. And you interpret in a certain way. The concept of a kick, a flight, and payback for a kick is an interpretation of what was. Bernanke urged: give a kick, and now the Fed is cutting it, and the government.

- If the Fed does raise rates, what then?

It will be generally ... 2015 will be very difficult, very twitchy. And then, in any case, they will have, from my point of view, to declare QE.

- Again?!

Again. But how they will sell QE, I don't even know. Let's put ourselves in the shoes of Janet Yellen, the chairman of the Fed. Suppose she is a faithful student of Bernanke, because America is very lucky with Bernanke. The fact that he ended up at the head of the FRS at such a critical moment is simply fantastic, because he is a person with brilliant knowledge and brilliant intuition, ready for unconventional steps, ready to push through and explain them. I do not believe that Yellen could inherit all these qualities, but even, let's say, she still continues the line of Bernanke. But she fell into a trap. What could she do? She understands that a new QE is inevitable, but doesn't know how to sell it to the public. Then, in her place, I would have taken the path of raising the rate, and the sooner the better, and would have made the situation in the American economy worsen so much that the public itself would have demanded a new QE.

- Why is the public against QE? That is, pump money further, what's the problem? Or fear of inflation?

Including the fear of inflation. Now such a period: everything that is being done does not correspond to economic theory. But no one is revising economic theory, everyone adheres to it.

- What, liberal?

This is ordinary monetarism.

- Milton Friedman and all the others?

Milton Friedman is one of the options. He is actually more practical. It's Irving Fisher - all monetary theory. Actually, starting with Fisher through Knight, Friedman, who else is there ...

- Friedrich Hayek?

No, Hayek is just an Austrian. There is a theory, it says quite certain things, it makes quite certain predictions. Nobody refused her. She keeps making predictions. She says: QE means inflation in the future.

But for some reason it doesn't happen.

For some reason it does not happen, but the more terrible ...

- ...what will happen next, right?

Yes, everyone says: break the dam. But when the dam breaks...

And you, then, do not believe in such consequences? There is even an expression "Bernanke's helicopter". Do you also believe that you can drop dollars from a helicopter and everything will be fine?

You need to throw in exactly as much as you need. This is a separate issue. In fact, I have drawn in the book, in the last chapter, an innovative scheme for analyzing the cash flows of the global economy. Yes, it does not look innovative, it may be a rather boring text, but it is innovative, there are arguments about how this whole process can be managed.

"CHINESE ECONOMY WILL COLLAPSE WITHIN FIVE YEARS"

- What is the situation in China? Many say that this is the next world hegemon after America...

China is trying to gain momentum through over-lending, already insanely over-lending to its own economy. He is trying to cause inflation in response to deflation. At the same time, nothing really works. At producer prices, deflation has been going on for three years.

- That is, there is no demand, right? You produce, but no one needs it?

No one needs it, and you lower prices.

- But economic growth remains, 7 percent. Allegedly? Or do they draw?

You know, there are already big doubts, including in China itself, that this is all true. But no one, of course, will now deliberately climb into this matter and figure it out. Well, growth continues, it is supported. This is done through bad debts and so on and so forth. And this deflationary wave is going all over the world, and the crisis is a deflationary crisis in the first place. And we see it. China, Europe with its real deflation... There, 0.5 percent of price growth per year is somehow squeezed out, and now, with the fall in oil prices, I don’t know at all whether prices will definitely go into the red.

- Explain why deflation is bad?

This is the worst. This, in fact, is what Keynes always feared most of all ( John Maynard Keynes - economist -approx. ed.) and what he always urged to fight. Because then just keeping the money becomes the most profitable strategy. Do not produce, do not invest, do nothing, just store. That is, hoarding. And this is a self-sustaining process. The higher the deflation, the more people hoard money, the higher the deflation again...

- And what is the fundamental cause of deflation?

Let's turn to the book. The fact is that we have an incorrect, slightly distorted consciousness, instilled by traditional economic theory. She says that economic growth is the norm, and the economic crisis is some kind of trouble, not the norm. But I got something completely different. The economic crisis is the norm, and in fact it takes a lot of effort to understand: why do we observe economic growth in certain periods?

There is an explanation why we observed this, say, during the industrial revolution. But it becomes clear that by the 1970s, not the 20th, but the 19th century, the deflationary crisis became permanent, which is only interrupted from time to time ... That is, we entered a period of constant crisis, which sometimes goes away for a while.

What are the elements of this crisis? Two world wars, three depressions. The depression of 1873 - 1914, then what is called the Great Depression, then the big crisis of the 70s and, finally, the current depression, one might say, is already the fourth. Two world wars, four depressions and a bunch of failures in the development of most of the world - Latin America, Africa, a number of countries in the Southeast. The next expected event is the collapse of the Chinese economy.

- Do you still insist on it?

I keep insisting...

- The Chinese miracle will burst?

I was afraid of this in August of this year. It seems that in February it will be two years since I made such a prediction, it got on YouTube. I said that the Chinese economy will collapse within five years, but not in the next two years. So in August, I became very worried that my predictive abilities would be called into question, because, damn it, the Chinese economy might not survive until February. Because everything went wrong there. In September they announced quantitative easing in China. The central bank supported the system. A couple of weeks ago they lowered the refinancing rate. Well, in general, they will live until February, my predictive abilities, thank God, will not suffer.

But now it's more about whether the Chinese economy will survive the 15th year, because imbalances are piling up in a gigantic way, bad debts are skyrocketing, housing prices have begun to decline. 4 trillion dollars invested in this very thing. Prices started to fall. The government has been trying to take administrative measures in recent years to prevent the formation of a bubble in the housing market, but these measures have not led to anything. Today the government says: do what you want, buy, just to support the market. But still prices are falling. Once again: this is 4 trillion, of which a significant part will burn out, it will all turn into bad debts ...

- And all this was also tied to a mortgage? Just like in America in 2008?

All mortgages! And construction is tied up with debts, and construction companies are all in debt as if in silks, and local budgets, and so on and so forth. This tangle alone is actually worth all of China's gold and foreign exchange reserves.

- Which somewhere 2 - 3 trillion?

3 trillion. And that's just one ball. We do not count metallurgy, state-owned enterprises, mainly metallurgical ones, with overcapacity and reserves. Everything depends on many factors. Therefore, the main problem now is whether China will survive 2015.

“DO YOU THINK CHINA IS SO UNIQUE?”

- What if it doesn't survive? What is the scenario?

You know, it's even hard to imagine that the economy of such a country will collapse... An economy of such a scale with such disproportions, of course, is collapsing for the first time in the world.

- Does it look like the collapse of the USSR?

This is not like the USSR, very unlike. The USSR was not so unbalanced. Yes, and with the external economy of the relationship were small. And then there is full integration, a gigantic internal imbalance, and a gigantic imbalance in the global economy. That is, this is the first such event in general ... In any case, we must have at least some analogues, and it’s hard for me to even imagine analogues.

Well, Andrei Devyatov, deputy director of the Institute for Russian-Chinese Strategic Cooperation, says that the crisis is not terrible for China. There will be rice, and this is the main thing. There are poor people there. And 300 million of the middle class, he says, are jailed, shot, and everything will be fine with them. That is, it will not be scary inside the country, but outwardly scary, do you think?

If everything goes smoothly there, without excesses, then for the outside world it will, of course, be a great gift.

Will the markets open up?

All the same, it is necessary to produce, and where to translate it? They are already being transferred to Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. Look, India is ready, she even got a new government at this point, which can take advantage of the right situation. They have problems there all the time with the change of government and flirting with socialism. And just now there is a government that does not flirt with socialism. India is ready to start accepting investments if they come.

Something will go to the States, yes. When they talk about the reindustrialization of America, this is nonsense. In fact, there are isolated examples, but statistically they are very insignificant. There are individual enterprises, there are even individual industries, but this is all very small compared to the total volume. Nevertheless, something will still go to the States, something will go to Europe ... There are, at least, peripheral countries that are ready. Unemployment - 20 percent, youth - 50, the cost of labor is declining, exports are growing. So if China collapses, they have good logistics in relation to the market.

- That is, the world will not particularly notice the collapse of the Chinese economy?

The world, on the contrary, will breathe a sigh of relief - if everything goes "in the nineties", if the Chinese themselves solve all their internal problems. They will switch to a bowl of rice, it is not a question for them. At the same time, it is true that the problems of the 300 million middle class will have to be solved. You just need to understand that the middle class there is those who receive from $300 a month. This is such a relative middle class... China is now struggling to survive. That's why I'm saying that, at least in 2015, they are likely, as many expect, to have a rather strong weakening of the yuan.

- But it's beneficial for Chinese exports, isn't it? The US has constantly accused China of undervaluing!

No, wait! Until February of this year, the yuan rose continuously for 12 years. That's why it was a shock when it suddenly fell, and by the way, many went bankrupt, because everyone was betting that the yuan would continue to rise. A number of currency traders went bankrupt because it was completely unimaginable that the yuan would fall. Next year, I think this will be quite a trend. But China will fight. Look, all the data is very bad, everything is getting worse. What is growing? China's balance sheet surplus is growing, but at the same time it is growing not due to the growth of exports - well, exports are also growing, but not at a 7% rate, but due to a reduction or fall in the rate of imports...

- Did they import mainly raw materials?

Imported raw materials, imported machines. They also import food, by the way, in huge quantities. This country is one of the largest buyers of food. So there may also be some progress in terms of food. China is the mystery of 2015. They will probably hold out, but now I would not make such firm bets until February. In any case, you need to be careful.

But what if, after all, the Chinese authorities cannot cope with the situation and the crisis comes out? And in China there are several million troops, a lot of weapons ... It is no coincidence that China has begun external expansion, seizing deposits, seizing transport corridors, and starting some other non-economic things to bring down the crisis.

By the way, do you know that he has already retreated from everywhere a long time ago? That all these cries, they are winter, the beginning of spring ... He left the Paracel Islands, stopped extracting oil. What can the Chinese do? Okay, they have an army. What will they do? Will they conquer Vietnam? What does this have to do with the dollar? Will they conquer us? What does this have to do with the dollar?

For a long time, American companies have been looking for new bases. Vietnam is developing. Myanmar was declared a democratic state, almost. Because they say: "You need cheap labor - please, no question, but just forget about your democracy." And India with a billion people? Do you think China is so unique? The world is full of those who are ready to take his place, who stand ready and are already slowly taking this place. And I repeat, not only in Southeast Asia, but also in Southern Europe.

- The question is, is China ready to accept it?

What does "I didn't accept" mean? Okay, you didn't. You don’t get investments, you say: “I don’t accept that investments didn’t come to me, that they don’t build factories anymore. I don't accept it!" What does it look like?

- Expansion is impossible from China, do you think? Does it have internal sources of growth? So they produced the iPhone, but they won’t be able to produce their own Chinese phones so that they capture the whole world? Lenovo and other IT companies?

Of course not. You are building some alternatives, but I am an economist, I do not fantasize.

REJECTION OF THE DOLLAR AS A FORCED TRANSITION TO SURROGATES

Several BRICS countries are constantly talking among themselves about the transition to settlements on bilateral relations without the participation of the dollar. This is seen as a big threat to the dollar...

It is generally pointless to consider it as a threat to the dollar. I would consider this as a threat to the BRICS countries in a certain sense.

- That is, it is impossible to refuse the dollar?

You understand, the BRICS countries do not threaten the dollar with anything.

- And what does this threaten us with?

Just imagine that we are making payments in dollars and yuan. What happened to the ruble during the year? Imagine Chinese businessmen, how can they make payments in rubles? The ruble is what, from their point of view? What happened to the ruble at the beginning of the year and what is now. When your ruble falls twice or close to it during the year, how to make payments in rubles? On the other hand, we have the yuan, which grew, grew, grew, and everyone got used to it. Then he fell a little, and now, most likely, he will fall too. And how can we make payments in yuan if we don't understand what yuan is? And how will we hedge risks?

By the way, there was a funny story about the threat to the dollar. Amazing, I just laughed and rolled on the floor with laughter. We describe it in such a way that here is another threat to the dollar. But in fact, the British and Germans have created clearing houses for direct settlements in euros and yuan, bypassing the dollar. After all, there are businessmen who understand and count every penny. And they, of course, realized that the fluctuations of the euro and the yuan must somehow be insured and hedged. And they began to look at hedging schemes, risks, direct settlements of the euro-yuan. And they made this scheme... using dollar instruments! Only with the use of dollar instruments did they manage to hedge the risks of such trading!

- Why do we need a dollar if we trade well with each other?

Good question. For us it sounds like some kind of political action, we are fighting world hegemony, we are fighting the dollar, we are at the forefront. But then the question will arise, you try to explain this to normal businessmen who count every penny, how to make payments in currencies that are unstable to each other, unstable to all other currencies, and how to hedge risks?

Politically, this fight with the dollar looks very nice, but...

- ...is it impossible to get away from the dollar?

The dollar is leaving. What happens now when QE is reduced? He leaves, and, of course, there, on the periphery, serious problems begin: how to pay?

- There is no normal money, we will make do with what we have ...

Let's make do with what we have, that's for sure. It's a decision that is advertised as offensive, but in reality...

"THE HUMANITY PAYED FOR THE REJECTION OF THE GOLD STANDARD WITH TWO WORLD WARS"

What is a dollar anyway? Why is it so unique, why does everyone need it so much? Why do you think the dollar underlies everything? Despite QE and the Fed, despite America's exorbitant debt...

Again I turn to my book. It shows that due to the coincidence of a number of factors - and this is not the merit of the United States - there was the most developed system of division of labor in the world at that time. The book describes in sufficient detail what happened in the 80s of the XIX century. What were the prerequisites, how everything developed quite quickly... But the foundations were laid, probably, by the 20s of the 20th century, when the structure was more or less formed. What does more developed mean? This means that manufactured goods are produced, a greater variety of manufactured goods. We can live in peace in our own country, yes, we have a low level of division of labor, it suits us, but we want something like this ... Remember, in the Soviet Union you want a tape recorder, you want a radio, you want something that works normally and does not break. So, you need a variety of goods. And to buy it all, you need dollars.

- Before the abolition of the gold standard, everything is clear, but now the dollar is an unsecured piece of paper?

The gold standard is an absurdity, for the rejection of which mankind paid with two world wars. Why was the gold standard introduced, why was this pegging of the dollar to gold introduced in 1944, and why this whole system? Keynes was opposed as a theoretician, but he was also an Englishman. He understood that if everything was left as it was, then only one dollar would be the currency for the whole world, and he had to save the pound. Pegging the dollar to gold was the way to save the pound.

- That is, a special operation of Britain? And we say gold, we mean the Rothschilds?

It doesn't matter. There were no Rothschilds yet, but there was already gold. Imagine 1944. You have a German mark, but you understand that it will soon be gone. You have an Italian lira, but it is about to be gone.

- Finances are ruined...

And there are no currencies in the world that it makes sense to talk about. Only dollar. Well, and some miserable pound, the issuers of which are up to their necks in debt to the United States.

- A dying empire.

A dying empire. And in 1944 Bretton Woods ( Bretton Woods is a mountain resort in the state of New Hampshire, in the northeastern United States, where the UN Monetary and Financial Conference took place in July 1944. It laid the foundations for the Bretton Woods monetary system, in which world currencies were pegged to the US dollar, and the US dollar itself was pegged to gold. It was also decided to create the IMF and the World Bank -approx. ed.) created the conditions for other currencies to exist besides the dollar. It is only thanks to the Bretton Woods system that you have other currencies at all.

- They could not be, could there be only one dollar?

Certainly. And still today the only world currency is the dollar. Euro? Yes, Europe can't even conduct QE properly... Economists there already understand that the euro is a dependent currency, that the euro is the same branch of the dollar as all other currencies. And we say: the ruble is a branch of the FRS, our Central Bank is a branch of the FRS, and this must be fought.

- So you agree that we are a branch of the Fed?

Of course I agree! Just like all other currencies...

- That is, the rejection of the dollar is a world war?

This is not a world war, this is the collapse of the world economy. And what will happen next, a world war, not a world war, a bunch of local wars, every man for himself ...

Still, it turns out that the dominance of the dollar arose situationally, thanks to the war, so it took such a place ...

No, the dollar was at that time and today, in any case, is still associated with the economy, with the highest level of division of labor. Yes, we can say that right now in the United States, perhaps, there is no such level of division of labor. But this system has long gone beyond the borders of one country, and it supports itself.

Let's take a simple example. Here we are sitting. You are like the smartest, most understanding. We all have different goods, we produce something, we release it. You write a receipt on a piece of paper that you are the smartest, the best. We agree that we accept your receipts as a means of payment. And we start to exchange. As long as you write one receipt, everything happens normally, but as soon as instead of one receipt you start writing two receipts ... The issue went uncontrolled. That is, today the main problem of the dollar is that the people who manage this system allow unacceptable things from the point of view of the world economy.

Wait, here I told you about the problem of declaring a new QE. You tell me right now, here, confirm my whole story. You say: if you print a lot of dollars, then there will be inflation. Well, they printed a lot of dollars - there is no inflation in the world.

It's just that dollars are piling up in China's reserves. Japan, Russia. That is, the dollar is being manipulated outside the generally accepted framework. Now there is no division of labor, no demand for American goods. There is a demand for Chinese goods.

But if you're buying an iPad that's made in China, you're basically paying America, not China. China gets three kopecks from this iPad, and so you can say: oh, I bought a Chinese one. Bullshit, you bought an American iPad. And most of what China does goes to America, and China gets its commission for the fact that the Communist Party explained to its working people that low wages are for the good of the revolution and communism. That is, American corporations simply rent labor from China, nothing more.

"THE CENTER OF WORLD TRADE WAS MALAYSIA"

- How do you see the future of the dollar system, the current currency system? Do you have an optimistic outlook?

There is no optimism. You seem to be in trouble now. But what is happening now is actually the norm. This growth was abnormal.

It's their failure, but ours...

You understand that now in the world there is no such thing: they or we. Not in the economy. The world market has been united for a long time.

- But it has a core and a periphery.

It has a core, the core is changing, by the way. I am writing in a book that I encountered one question that tormented me at one time and which I could not understand in any way. Because when sukuk, Islamic bonds, appeared, they were developed by Malaysian theologians. I sit and think: what does Malaysia have to do with it?

- Britain is behind Malaysia.

No, I'll explain now what's the matter. Again you are looking for the Rothschilds. Why Malaysia? And I find out that, it turns out, the center of the world economy for a long time, almost until the 19th century, was Malaysia, that is, the territory that Malaysia now occupies. It was a place where people from China and India met and exchanged goods... There was the main trade. And since Islam reigned in Malaysia, there were all the schools that developed the actual economic foundations of Islam. And that's how they survived. That is, the center of the world was once Malaysia.

- Can't be!

It was the center of world trade. And it didn't matter if they were Muslims or non-Muslims. It's just that the Malaysians themselves were Muslims.

When they say “Islamic economy” today, it is 99 percent, and now even 120 percent, has nothing to do with Islam. Five forums on Islamic economics were held in Kazan...

I don't care if you think it's in line with the Qur'an. I'm not an expert, I'm not interested. The economy is not interested. The dollar is of interest, but the opinion of whether it corresponds to the Koran or not is not of interest ...

"FOR WHAT I KNOW, ECONOMIC GROWTH IS IMPOSSIBLE FURTHER"

Why are we shocked now? Because since the 90s, from your intellectual cluster with the participation of Khazin, Kobyakov, "Neoconomics" there has been talk about "The decline of the dollar empire and the end of Pax Americana", as one of the books was called ...

I didn't write it.

That is, you do not believe in this theory of the Khazin-Kobyakov group of economists? They say that there is a division of labor, the expansion of the market is necessary. The market expansion reserve is over, therefore the end of America.

I never concluded that this was the end of America. This is the end of growth. There was an era of growth from the end of the 18th century. At the end of the 19th century, she failed. A crisis. And already on the last props it has existed for the last 30 years. It's all described in my book. But in order to get to this description, to accept it, one must read the theoretical chapters - some may be bored - about how it all works in general.

- What started and what ended today? Is the supercycle over?

I will quote the classic (takes up his book). Is growth possible? I say that earlier growth was possible in such-and-such conditions due to such-and-such. There is speculation here whether the growth may be due to these factors or not. In general, people are cunning creatures, maybe they will come up with something. I have a setup all the time: we monitor everything. I do not believe in scientific and technological progress, but in all our forecasts for the year we give an overview of scientific and technical. We are specifically studying the question: what if there is something in the field of scientific and technological progress? We have a special research program. And we are looking to see if these factors can affect something, growth.

- What will be the new iPhone, for example, as a driver of growth?

The iPhone just has nothing to do with height. Here are 3D printers and so on - we are following all this closely. What I know so far fits into my scheme. But I'm not saying that I know everything. That's why I look around all the time. And within the limits of what I know, economic growth is no longer possible.

- And that will be? New Middle Ages or post-industrial economy?

There is no post-industrial economy. In fact, what is the American division of labor system? This is car. We both had and still have an automobile economy. We are catching up with the automotive economy. All these iPhones, iPads and everything else are icing on the cake.

- The computer is not fundamental, not a revolution?

Of course not.

- Should there be a source of energy or what? What is the sign of the underlying opening?

I told you, I don't believe in scientific and technological progress.

- But making a car became possible thanks to the discovery of the internal combustion engine.

Of course, people are constantly discovering something. What made the discovery of the internal combustion engine possible?

- High-strength steel appeared.

Right. And its processing is internal. And this is thanks to what?

- Coal?

Eh no! Thanks to the arms race.

"The COMPUTER WAS INVENTED IN 1832"

- War - the father of all things?

In many ways. Nobody created an internal combustion engine. Then we saw: yes, it is and it is, and it can be put into an internal combustion engine.

- Wouldn't you have guessed without the war? Then it turns out that fear is the main driving force?

Picture this: Let's say you have an idea for a car. You have to make it in the workshop, in the forge. To do this, we need to develop technology. They make guns in war. To do this, they make special devices, machine tools, special melting furnaces, including those with several remelting cycles. Am I supposed to reproduce all this in my village forge and create a car? Here I have an example. Do you know when the architecture of the modern computer was described?

- In the 30s?

They made a mistake with the century - in 1832. The computer was invented and fully described in 1832 by Babbage ( Charles Babbage - English mathematician, inventor of the first analytical computer -approx. ed.). Who, by the way, in addition to a book about computers, also has a book about the organization of the division of labor in the economy.

- But the computer appeared later, of course.

The fact is that Babbage undertook to do it, since there was an idea. Babbage was a great inventor. Among other things, the speedometer, which everyone knows, is an invention of Babbage. He invented a lot of things, including in order to finance the creation of the Analytical Engine, as he called it. Without electricity, of course, on gear wheels. New casting methods have been invented, two types of machine tools that are still in use today, gear cutting methods, and so on. Moreover, the car was made 74 years later by his son in one copy and really worked.

- And no one really needed?

But the creators of the first operating computer studied the works of Babbage. And his wife was actually the first programmer, she developed the principles of programming these machines. Everything has been done since then.

- That is, you do not consider the discoveries themselves to be the basis for launching a wave of growth

Opening itself is not. Once again, the computer was discovered in 1832. Please, here it is. The current computer is no different in structure.

- And what then are the conditions for the beginning of growth?

It won't start until you have the required subject-technological set. I'm talking about scientific and technological progress again, this is important. You decide to invent something. You say: now I will invent some kind of bullshit. What do I need for this? I need an electric wire to connect two things. You say: now I will go to the store where it is sold, they will cut off a piece for me there, and I will do something.

Even the architecture of your invention, unlike Babbage, is focused on the fact that the wire is already there and you can buy it, that it is sold in any store, and not for you as an inventor, but for all ordinary citizens. Now imagine: you need a wire, but there is no wire at all. You say you need to connect, but how? You need a wire, but from what? It is necessary to pull out this wire, but which one, how? You have done in your workshop, for example. But you understand that this cannot be offered to the public, because they will grab the wire with their hands. So, you need to make a shell. How to make a shell? In what shell to sew it up so that it is safe? Before you invent something, you have to solve a thousand problems that have already been solved, because for some reason the market needed it and it was done. Until you live to the point where there is a wire, your invention, even the most wonderful one, will not work. When Babbage started, then there was almost nothing. There were watches, they were already in production, there were music boxes. Actually, what is Babbage's computer? This is the connection of the clock with the music box. What is a modern computer? It is the connection of a clock with a music box, nothing more. Don't think it's "ah".

Binary logic is still there. You can't speed up without it. In binary logic, of course, there is also mechanics, but all the same, without it, there would be no qualitative leap.

Binary logic was already known then, for sure. Babbage understood what the division of labor is, and he understood what an elementary operation is - plus or minus. Once again I say that the creators of the first computers really studied Babbage. Programming theory was developed by his wife.

"SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PROGRESS IS, BUT IT DOES NOT GIVE GROWTH"

You say you don't believe in scientific and technological progress. And he is. There are discoveries being made all the time.

How are inventions made? Due to the combination of elements of the subject-technological set. Only when it grows by itself do you have the opportunity to do something new.

What do many economists tell us today? 40 years - innovative pause. And I can tell you: indeed, 40 years is an innovative pause, because this material (and not redistributive) growth of the economy, which has been going on for the last 30 years, stopped in the 70s. You have a well-established subject-technological set, a large number of people work with it, but since there is no opportunity for growth, what does it result in? You did something new, but at best it replaces something old. Let's say it's more efficient. You've got a 3% performance boost on one product in millions. You can’t say: “I made something new, this new one, along with the old one, will be produced in billions of copies and will give us growth.” This situation does not exist, because there are no conditions, we just replace the old one.

That is, it exists, scientific and technological progress, but it does not give us growth. Some take ridiculous things for scientific and technological progress. Moreover, this situation even has a macro dimension. At one time, the Dutch invented a twist-off cork on beer, on glass bottles. For several years they had a frenzied growth in the brewing industry. New product, it's patented. And then the statistics, let's see. Is it an innovation? Innovation. Did it grow? Yes, if we look at Holland, yes. And if we look at all brewing products, there was no growth, not a single extra bottle was sold. The breweries of the Czech Republic and Bavaria collapsed until the patent expired. The patent expired - everything returned. Someone began to switch to aluminum containers actively. Not a single extra bottle of beer in the world has been sold. It just happened to be redistributed. And in the Netherlands there was growth, which was manifested even in macro indicators - 0.3 percent of GDP due to the growth of the brewing industry. For the Dutch GDP, this is a fairly large value. Here it is, growth. And this is an innovation, you can write it down.

And what are we doing around the world? They take this kind of innovation, write down the local effects that exist, summarize them and say: this is the effect of innovation. At the same time, not noticing local failures that stand on the other side. And then the conclusion follows: if the number of innovations is increased, then yes, of course, there will be economic growth. But I say again: after the car, which in addition (not in return!) to what was consumed, gave the automotive industry, roads, all the gigantic infrastructure that is built on it, no other innovation has ever had such an effect.

- What about weapons?

Weapons are a help in replenishing the subject-technological set. But the weapon has long been out of touch with the economy. What is the last thing we got from weapons? Except Teflon.

"IN ORDER TO ARRIVE THE DIVISION OF LABOR, EXTERNAL CONDITIONS WAS NECESSARY"

What is your further forecast: will the dollar “cure”? Or, if I understand Mikhail Khazin correctly, are there 5-6 currency zones?

I don't see how the world economy can be broken down into currency zones. I said this to Khazin and spoke publicly. I just don't understand. I'm not a dreamer, but I'm good with imagination. If I can’t imagine some process, how it will follow there ... I have a very practical mindset, despite the fact that I am a theorist. If they tell me some theoretical speculative construction, I always try to understand how it "falls to the ground." Where to start, who will take the first step, the second step, and so on. I don't understand the first step.

- But after all, the decline of the British Empire was probably also difficult for contemporaries to imagine ...

Why, just easy. The same goes for the division of labor. It seems to everyone what is incomprehensible in the division of labor? My book is about just that. Everyone says: we know that it exists, we kind of know why it exists, so let's not even think about it. But proceeding from the fact that people knew, could, understood, the division of labor could not arise. For this, some external conditions were needed, most often non-economic ones. This is precisely the mystery of economic growth.

Well, the young Marx and Engels in the German ideology, with all their youthful fervor, spoke about the first division of labor - sexual, between a man and a woman, and off we go ...

In general, this is not a German ideology, but economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844.

I didn’t want to go into methodology, but I have a question, where is the other side then? Where is the alienation? Or will you have it in the second volume?

I don’t have the word “alienation” there, but everything related to the very phenomenon of “alienation” is described there. It is always difficult for me during the presentation of books, people want something familiar to be written in the book. But then it is better to write a book yourself, it will contain everything familiar to you.

- Well, apparently, in five years we will say that we saw the living Marx, listened to him and were the first to ask questions.

This material was taken from the site. www.

universal, useful free complex

When the crisis hits the real sector, all countries will be forced to defend their domestic markets. They will start introducing protectionist measures and raising customs tariffs.

Russia is already heavily raising duties on old foreign cars to protect its native auto industry.

And when these measures become widespread, the US will have a moral justification. Guys, we warned you that freedom of trade is the main thing. You have destroyed the cornerstone of the entire system of capitalism. We are forced to abandon the dollar as a world currency. At the same time, they have a strong weapon - who at what rate to exchange old dollars. Allies - on preferential terms, enemies - as we want.

Sorry, Oleg Vadimovich, but for now this is all conspiracy theories at the level of the film “Zeitgeist”.

It's not about conspiracy theories. The alternative here would be a permanent crisis from which it is impossible to get out. In a year or two or three, they will begin to think of all this as a practical problem. Remember September-October. Few people in Russia thought about the crisis then. "Quiet Harbor", "Island of Stability"! And in December, what are all the talks, jokes about?

So the new American currency is the only salvation for capitalism?

She will give 8 years of respite, no more. The fundamental problems of the world economy still remain.

Five centuries ruled the main principle of capitalism - accumulate. And invest. Now the mechanism of accumulation is breaking down before our eyes. The closest example: we are told - invest your hard-earned money in pension funds, they will give you something in old age. GIVE NOTHING. This should be obvious today. Not only pensions, but all social security can be covered. Life insurance, health insurance, unemployment insurance. People saved, saved - everything bursts. Russia is easier in this regard. We are only on the outskirts of the implementation of this system.

The second problem is that it is generally not clear where to save, for what, how.

Indeed, the savings of the Soviet people burned down during the Gaidar reform. Then in default everything depreciated. Now the ruble is slowly falling again. Savings are decreasing.

But then, pay attention, everything went in periods. 1991, 1998, 2008. During the breaks, it was possible to grow fat. And now the process will be permanent. Just accumulated - burned down, accumulated - burned out. Inflation or devaluation will try.

Hence the third problem. What to work for?

Labor made a man out of a monkey.

People work more not only to satisfy their current needs, but also to save up for large purchases, secure a comfortable old age, and leave a good legacy for their children. Many managers had an idea in general: we work hard until 45-50, then quit our job and enjoy a comfortable life on exotic islands.

A whole movement has appeared - downshifting.

Now it won't. Then why work? Just meet current needs?

Here are three crises related to accumulation.

We add two more crises to them.

Remember our socialist Gosplan? He “thought” on a large scale: more metal, coal, tractors, excavators…

As in the song of Yuz Aleshkovsky: “more iron and steel per capita in the country!”

And this very soul of the population craved not excavators and steel, but video cameras and jeans. But Gosplan did not see this small thing. The current Western financial system is similar to our old Gosplan. She sees something big to translate capital into investments. Let's support the construction boom! At some point, this is effective for a billion dollars. And when they build for a hundred billion, everything depreciates, everything is at a loss.

And the mortgage crisis begins. Which is now being blamed for everything.

It just started with a mortgage. But this was the case in all industries. Where it is thinner, it breaks there. It is necessary to create a new system for searching for effective places for investing capital.

The world has come to a period when it is necessary to update the main production assets on the old technical basis. Capitalism cannot do this either. And never did. Something new always appeared, and the old subsided, simply died off. The new one was more efficient.

Let's take oil refining as an example. These factories were built all over the world in the 30-60s. Now they are outdated, they are not enough. Both in the States and here. Building a new factory? It will not differ much in efficiency from the old one. After all, where possible, old factories have been modernized. The new one has one advantage - it will not stop so often for preventive repairs. But in order to build a new plant, you need to get into debt, then pay off loans, interest, and recoup the construction. Old factories compete with you, they were built a long time ago, a new factory will always be inefficient. Until half of the industry collapses itself from dilapidation.

The same is true in the energy and nuclear industries. Pipelines, oil pipelines, utilities. A crisis of the industrial structure is looming throughout the world. By the way, who will go to the same USA to modernize the old? The one who did not break into progressive industries. This will exacerbate the crisis.

The country that learns to solve these problems earlier and better than others will be stronger in overcoming the crisis.

This is where Russia can just pull ahead.

But by no means on technological innovations. It is primarily about social innovation. About new methods of public administration. We need new social technologies, new ways to motivate people.

New social technologies are not expensive. And we prefer to invest in terribly expensive technological innovations, which will still be useless, meaningless in the new conditions.

Here we are saying: we will make the same innovative economy as in the West.

Guys, if this innovative economy were really effective, no one would have to inflate financial bubbles. And there would be no trace of the current crisis. This crisis has shown that the entire innovative technological system does not work.

All problems are in the brain. We need to understand what kind of crisis we are experiencing. I no longer know whether to laugh or cry when I hear about Moscow as a new financial center. This is all against the backdrop of a terrible crisis in London as a financial center. But we take London as a model. Again, we will spend time, effort, money on a chimera. For a year or two we will lie to each other, write beautiful reports, someone will make a career. And then slowly forget.

Until recently, it was fashionable to look for points of growth in resources, materials, etc.

I believe that the point of growth is, first of all, the place where the person himself grows. We must now approach the solution of the problems of the world crisis precisely from the point of view of human growth. Then the material will grow.

It already smacks of socialism! Even the oligarch Khodorkovsky from the depths of the Siberian ores wrote recently about the left turn that awaits the planet in the coming decades.

Of course, what will happen as a result of the crisis will be a completely new system. Not capitalism. But it will not be socialism, as we knew it in the USSR. Well, at least because the market in it must be preserved. In what form - I do not know, but it will remain. And how all this will be called - it does not matter.

Left turn? In my opinion, today the left thought is in a crisis even deeper than the economy. Those who call themselves leftists must first turn their own brains, and only then invite others to join them.

And yet your forecast, when, how the world will get out of this global crisis? What will be the output?

There are three options. The first, as I said, is temporary. This is a new type of war: the introduction of a new currency, the cancellation of debts, and so on.

The second is when we, relatively speaking, return back to the caves (let's hope that we stop a little earlier). And from there we will begin to go through the story again.

The third option is when we understand what tasks we face today and learn how to solve them. I have listed these issues. I will not insist that these are all tasks. Perhaps there are more. Perhaps there will be new ones. But the sooner we start thinking about them, the sooner the crisis will end.

Oleg Vadimovich, let's go back to today. What should we do? Here and now?

The authorities are now reassuring the investor. Well, they will detain him for a day or two, please him! To please, however, also costs money. But the investor will still run away. And the people will stay here. Him to live, to survive in a crisis. The population is disoriented. I believe that people need to be honest and straightforward to explain: hard times are coming!

So the government openly hints at it. Back in October, we were assured that there would be no devaluation of the ruble. In November, they started talking that there would be no SHARP devaluation. What is unclear here? Starting January 1st, unemployment benefits will be raised. For what? You don't have to go to grandma for answers. And in plain text, announce about hard times, impending unemployment - the panic will come.

I spoke with a high-ranking official from the administration, you know who. He also reproached: you are sowing panic. People buy cereals.

“But the real crisis is yet to come, you and I understand this, I answer. Let people at least have cereal in stock. There is nothing you can do to help them!”

What did he cover?

It's not about the doer. It's about the people.

Many simply do not want to believe in hard times. And the hints of the authorities do not hear. 8 years of our economic policy resented me? A bet was made on a big freebie. Freebie corrupted everyone. Money dripped from the oil sector. Any loans! If you look around Moscow, who works? Visitors. And we still grumbled, we came in large numbers here! For some reason, everyone decided that the freebie would be forever. Ivanushka's Russian dream - the fool from fairy tales? Everyone was too relaxed. That's why they don't want to believe that the freebie ends. For a long time. Now we need to mobilize, think about what to do if they are fired, how to live. Do you have the right profession? The older generation has experience of survival. And let's take the young, whose development took place in these eight free years. No survival skills. At lectures I try to explain the situation to young people - they don't want to listen. They are the ones who will suffer the most.

Already starting. The so-called “office plankton” is the first to be cut. However, other publicists do not see anything wrong with this. Just think, managers will stop eating black caviar. But these are our children. And they are not to blame for the fact that in the era of freebies, offices grew like mushrooms and they were touted for high salaries. And now they're throwing it out into the street.

Do not look for someone to blame in a crisis. We must already now think about the fate of millions of managers. Yes, guys, you will be poorer. But you are young, energetic, brains are not frozen. And in what direction to move the brains, the state should show. And offer something. Otherwise, where will they go with guilt and anger? Yes to crime. Who will benefit from this? The problem of increasing criminalization will be strong all over the world. And we especially.

In general, it is time for the state to think about how to save the people. Not bail out the bankers. In fact, the ability of any state to cope with economic problems is greatly exaggerated. The state itself likes to exaggerate. To prove how smart it is, or to blame a political opponent.

And Roosevelt?

There is still an illusion that Roosevelt brought the country out of depression. In fact, the war brought America out of the Great Depression.

It is well known how that depression developed. First 46 months of recession. Then three years of no recession and no growth. Then another year and a half of recession. Again depression. And only in the 42nd year, the growth of the economy began. When America entered the war.

But Roosevelt saved the people. He didn't let me die of hunger. He gave at least some, but a job on which money could be earned. And when the situation changed, these people brought the country out of the crisis.

It is curious that even in Israel's anti-crisis plan, 6 billion shekels are given for the construction of desalination plants, the laying of highways and railways. In Russia, the problem of distillers has not yet arisen, but the trouble with roads has been since the time of Gogol. Maybe at least the crisis will save Russia from impassability? At the same time, people will get jobs.

The problem is that now the situation is completely different than it was during the Great Depression. Not only in our country, in the West too. What have people been called to, the youth? Learn, master new professions, increase human capital. I don't like this term, but I didn't call for it either. And now with this human capital, what? Build roads? And then back to the offices? And then the roads again? Don't you think this is nonsense?

And what to teach the new generation? Or have us so all and will waves. First, we teach lawyers-economists. We teach their children to become turners and fitters. Vnukov - again for lawyers-economists. I repeat once again - now everything will change fundamentally. And the old recipes, even if they once brought success, will not be useful to us. You will have to think for yourself.

How do you assess the anti-crisis activities of the government?

I'll start with Kudrin, because now the fashion has gone like this: everyone scolds him, and they think that this will end the crisis.

I also have something to scold Kudrin for, if only for his complacent dreams of a funded pension system. But let's be objective. That there will be a crisis in Russia - he said even when the global crisis had not even begun. And he assessed the situation correctly. And he knew about the cyclical nature of the economy, when everyone else did not want to know about it. And he prepared as best he could.

Another thing is that this crisis is not cyclical, but Kudrin cannot be blamed here. Many people still don't realize this. Hence both his and the government's mistakes: they all think that we can only stand for a day and hold out the night, and then, you see, everything will somehow resolve itself. Nothing will fall apart on its own. We're just wasting time.

And what should the government do first?

Urgently send the ruble into free swimming. Maybe not before the New Year, but immediately after it, for sure. I understand perfectly well that devaluation is an extremely unpopular measure. But the situation is getting worse every day. Last week, the government admitted that we are, in fact, in a real recession. Devaluation is the only way to stop the recession and somehow rectify the situation. The ruble will still have to devalue. But it's one thing - now, when there are gold and foreign exchange reserves, to help those who will suffer the most. And another thing is to devalue when the reserves are exhausted, the budget will burst at the seams and no one will be able to provide any assistance to anyone.

What will happen to the ruble?

My colleagues and I estimate the potential for devaluation by a factor of two. That is 50-55 rubles per dollar. It won't drop to that level right away. At first it will drop to 35. And it will gradually fall throughout the next year. After that, we can really expect that there will be a rebound from the bottom and recovery growth will begin in the economy on domestic resources.

As in default.

Yes, now the situation really resembles a default. The only difference is that we now have very large reserves. But we see that they are literally melting before our eyes. And in the new year they will be needed to close a lot of holes in the economy. So devaluation, I repeat, is the main and urgent measure to save the Russian economy, which the government will have to take. Sooner or later. But earlier is better.

First-class state adviser, scientific director of the Neoconomics Research Center Oleg Grigoriev spoke in an interview with EastRussia about why we imitate savages, wait for other people's planes and are unable to face reality.

- Oleg Vadimovich, you can lose count by listing all the strategic programs of recent years. Our economy is constantly being moved, led or turned somewhere (at least in words and from high tribunes). But I really want to turn on “economic GPRS” and finally understand: at what point are we now and where should we go in two or three years?

As long as we're not going anywhere. Our economy is in its rightful (or, as usual, slightly illegal) place. Since we do not follow all the established rules, we live a little better than we could. But this does not change the overall picture.

We need to understand a few things. And above all, do not delude ourselves with the argument that we are “a developed country that has been a little delayed in the transition to a post-industrial society” and therefore lags behind other developed countries. But when we finally make a breakthrough, we will all be happy ... This thesis is pleasing to the ears of officials and is actively used in reports to the leadership - but nothing more.

In fact, we are a developing country. Yes, with its rich and difficult history of ups and downs. But for many developing countries, the story is no less dramatic. For example, in Argentina, which in the 20s of the last century was officially considered one of the most developed countries in the world, but then hopelessly lagged behind. We spent much more effort than Argentina to reach the final, everyone remembers these great deeds, but the fact is that today we have lost our positions in many ways.

- And now what i can do? Do you think this is forever?

- It's OK. You just need to understand your chances and opportunities as a developing country. For such states, there are three basic models of existence in the modern world. The first is monocultural. This is how the Russian Empire developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We acted like a classic "banana republic", except that bananas do not ripen in our climate, and we supplied grain to the world market. Oil, too, just for it in those days they received little money, although they were the largest exporters in the world. The essence is the same - exports are based on a limited type of product, as a rule, these are raw materials or food.

The second model is investment. Like the first, it is kept at the expense of low labor costs. A classic example is China, when peasants (of whom there are many, despite the fact that there is little land) are put to the machine, they are still paid a penny, but labor productivity is growing sharply. This is the basis of the "Chinese miracle". In general, whenever we encounter a phenomenon that is commonly called an economic miracle, it always means that the country has embarked on the path of investment development. Since 2005, wages have been growing quite rapidly in China, locating production in the Middle Kingdom has become much less profitable, and now the economy of Vietnam, Indonesia, Myanmar and Bangladesh is developing according to the investment model. World investors invest their capital there, build factories, and the poor people work on them. Such workers do not need much, the cost of production is minimal.

The third option is a monocultural-rental economy. Just what we are now seeing in Russia. In this regard, we are comparable, for example, with African Gabon, since we also have oil and gas, and in terms of per capita income in the world ranking, we occupy neighboring lines. True, they have much fewer inhabitants ...

- But Gabon definitely does not supply weapons to the world market, are we ahead here?

“Weapons are a legacy of our history. We took our position back in Soviet times, when the arms and military equipment market was bipolar. Now there are rather “one and a half” poles: we are gradually losing markets. The actual efficiency of such deliveries is quite low. At least, incomparable with the income from the sale of oil. The income from the export of military-industrial complex products is 1% of our GDP, and the figure speaks for itself.

- There are other figures that were cited in official documents. For example, the fact that in the current budget of the Russian Federation the share of income from raw material exports has significantly decreased and now amounts to only 41%. That is, we are gradually moving away from raw material rent towards more technologically advanced industries. Is not it?

“Numbers are good at deception. Here, for example, the same oil. A lot of people work in this industry - from drillers to the top management of Rosneft or LUKOIL. Naturally, they need to buy something in their country and eat something - therefore, at least there should be a bakery for bread nearby. And the baker is sure that he does not depend on oil in any way. But if there were no oilmen with their money and constant demand, there would be no his bakery. Everyone needs some kind of goods or services, but don't be fooled by the illusion that the bakery or cafe is working and paying taxes "on its own." They are built into a common chain. And as soon as the price of oil falls, and with it the salaries of customers, the cafe becomes empty and goes bankrupt. This is the simplest example of interdependence, in reality, of course, everything is much more complicated. But the essence is the same. Such things have to be taken into account in order not to be surprised later - why something “suddenly” collapsed, “it never happened, and here it is again.” In addition, one should not rejoice at the too rapid strengthening of the ruble.

- Why? How could this be bad?

- I'll explain. Let's say we export oil, the price of it grows, the ruble strengthens, it becomes profitable to lend to us, and foreign capital flows to Russia. This is the well-known carry-trade system: borrow money where the interest rate is low and take it to a country where the interest rate is high. Compare: the Fed's discount rate is 1%, the European Bank has it generally negative. And here you can earn up to 8% a year, if the ruble strengthens, then up to 12% on dollar deposits. Americans buy our federal loan bonds (OFZ) - and until the US Senate banned this operation, they make very good money on such deposits. However, in developing countries, bank interest is always high, but the threat of currency devaluation is inevitably present. A carry trade is always a bubble that cannot live forever. Therefore, the strengthening of the ruble is dangerous for a developing economy such as ours. If 200 billion suddenly flow from external investors, this in itself depresses domestic production. And when suddenly the capital starts to “leave” back, the economy simply collapses. Therefore, for our authorities at the beginning of this year, the main task was to prevent excessive strengthening of the ruble. Behind him comes a lot of speculative capital, mostly loans from abroad. And as soon as the pendulum swings back, the situation can become very alarming.

- We will take into account the possibility of terrible distant forecasts, but let's still get back to reality. Three years have already passed since the crisis of 2014. What awaits us in the near future?

– So far, everything will remain more or less well, and no one argues with the head of the Ministry of Economic Development, Maxim Oreshkin, on this. The economy, after a series of shocks, has balanced, and we are likely to face a decade of stagnation. For at least half a year, oil will remain at a decent price level - $60 per barrel and a little more, and therefore next year will most likely be better than this one. Positive and negative factors add up to zero. The budget is shrinking, although it is investments from the treasury that support GDP growth, but the price of oil is growing ... and so on.

– Is the same “breakthrough” possible for Russia in principle, which is now being talked about so much and even more dreaming of?

“Unfortunately, for our economy, which is still “rental” in its type, the path to the transition to an investment development model that provides such breakthroughs is closed. Our labor costs are too high, our currency is too strong due to receiving excessive income from the influx of speculative capital from abroad, and the budget policy is not conducive to this. In order to ensure the country's rapid economic growth, as in the same China, purely theoretically, wages would have to be sharply reduced to a certain acceptable level. But to what extent is unclear. Moreover, there are many other developing countries in the world that are ready to accept any investment. Actually, this is what happened in the 70s, when large corporations en masse began to transfer production to Asia or Africa. Even Russia could have taken the investment route back in the 1920s. Now I can’t even imagine to what level it would have to impoverish for such a transition to other tracks - even if for the sake of economic success in the distant future. No one, of course, will go for it.

- And how, then, will it be possible to develop, for example, the Far East solely through investment? If you remember, this has been talked about for a long time, the discussion was only about the size of investments and methods of attracting them (ex-plenipotentiary Viktor Ishaev in his program proposed to allocate 2-2.5 trillion rubles of public investment, Yury Trutnev - through the creation of external investments, subject to the creation of preferential regimes for investors, the establishment of ASEZs and the Free Port of Vladivostok).

In fact, this is where our conversation began. Investments are, if you like, a scientific chimera. Any economist will say that "growth is associated with investment." But you always need to have a complete picture. Investments will come if there is a developed infrastructure in this territory. For example, a port to transport raw materials, an assembly plant, electricity, a road, and so on. It really is. But even if you invest in building infrastructure, the investment may not come to you if you have an expensive labor force. The rental economy, of course, also has its own flow of investment, it's just different. It is no coincidence that the inflow of capital to us was felt in the 2000s. And even then it was customary to say that we are gradually ceasing to depend on oil and gas. Although it was, to put it mildly, not so.

Most investors are determined to come to our country and set up export production here for foreign markets. But in Western economics there is what is called the "home market effect". Let me explain with a simple example. In the early 90s, we began to import juices in cardboard bags instead of the usual three-liter cans. I once saw with my own eyes in a warehouse how these packages are unloaded for customs clearance. In fact, at that time we “carried water” instead of importing concentrate and bringing it to the required condition using our own, fairly simple production. And the poor were, and there were few consumers. And then people began to live better, the market expanded, their own production appeared from imported materials or raw materials. In addition to the juice mentioned above, we assemble cars or household appliances from imported components, produce medicines, that is, we attract foreign raw materials or spare parts to produce products that the domestic market needs. But the trouble is that we have almost exhausted the entire reserve of such investments in the domestic market in the 2000s.

However, the effect of the domestic market is not enough to ensure development based on the domestic market. There is such a thing as the middle income trap. This is a situation when the incomes of the population are already high enough for the country to begin to lose competitiveness in foreign markets, and still insufficient for the domestic market to become the engine of development. Moreover, there is a regularity: the later the country begins investment interaction, the lower the level of income at which the middle income trap arises. Let's say Germany and Japan started right after World War II, and today are stuck at 75% of GDP per capita of the US level (even a little lower in terms of consumption). South Korea and Taiwan, which embarked on this path in the 1960s, have long been unable to break away from the 50% level (the very concept of the middle income trap, as far as I know, appeared precisely in relation to South Korea). Today, many economists say that China, which switched to investment interaction a decade later, is in the middle income trap. At the same time, GDP per capita did not even reach 20% of the US level.

So all the calculations that China will suddenly become the leader of the world economy have no basis. There, on the contrary, one should rather expect new shocks for the world economy: there is a rapid increase in debt, despite the fact that the efficiency of lending is rapidly falling, which is fraught with a serious crisis.

So, Russia, by the nature of its development model, is initially in the middle income trap. Only in our country this “average income” fluctuates depending on the dynamics of oil prices.

When we talk about the possibility of development, we must always keep in mind that there is no problem in the world today to produce something. The problem is to sell what is produced. The crisis of overproduction is not empty words, the main problem is that everywhere in the world there are enough capacities, and technological problems have been solved, and logistics have been established, but demand is not growing as fast as production. Plus, of course, other problems - for example, pressure on small and medium-sized producers from large grid companies. Such a tangle cannot be cut in one fell swoop. Even more so in a particular region.

- If, as you say, China is about to risk becoming a zone of colossal instability, then we, developing our Far East in close proximity to the "whirlpool", risk being drawn into it? Moreover, this region is very sparsely populated. Or do you think that in the east of the country it is necessary to actively create urban agglomerations as "outposts" of the economy - as, for example, Kazakhstan is planning with its idea of ​​creating million-plus cities?

- China is not so terrible for us - just do not count too much on it as a possible partner. As for big cities - yes, this is really a way out. One of the opportunities for development is to change the system of human settlement. Sometimes orthodox economic science is really worth listening to: a technological breakthrough is made when former peasants get to the machines. That is, one has to move from a rural model to an urban civilization. The difference in labor productivity between the peasant and the industrial worker is enormous, dozens of times. Therefore, even agriculture is now moving to a qualitatively different technological track. Naturally, this dictates new approaches to urban development. According to expert calculations, if a country is trying to make a “breakthrough”, this is possible only with a few megacities in the form of growth points. Moreover, a city with a population of three million is much more stable and independent than a city with a population of one million. Eight- and twelve-millionaires, of course, are in a more advantageous position, but this is unrealistic for us. If a city of three million people is created in our Far East, it will give the region a powerful impetus to development.

In this sense, the idea of ​​"Far Eastern hectares" seems unviable to me. In my opinion, this is some kind of nonsense. A hectare, or two, or even twenty together will give little, except for bravura reports on the completed orders of the authorities. This reminds me very much of the call to create "family estates" in the unfortunate and hungry province, which at the beginning of the 2000s was put forward by some ultra-patriotic organization, something like the "Cedars of Russia". Even in the Central region, near Smolensk, Rostov, Belgorod or Samara, such things are unprofitable and impracticable. Especially in the Far East. You can bet only on large cities and agglomerations.

Naturally, large public investments will be required at the initial stage. In the same, for example, social infrastructure, so that people have an incentive to move to such a city, to simple rented housing and “furnished rooms” for visitors, to sewage treatment plants and power grids ... But then the actual commercial project begins to work. To feed such a city, agriculture is needed, and it is “pulling up” to it. New jobs, manufacturing, the construction sector, furniture factories, the power industry and much more - all this is concentrated around the 3-million population, which is becoming a very promising sales market and the center of production at the same time.

So far, we have considered such projects only in theory, without specific calculations and references to the terrain. Kazakhstan went a little further - the president of the republic put forward the idea of ​​four large cities as the basis for future economic growth. On the example of the same Aktobe, it became clear that there are many pitfalls in such projects. But this is not a reason to bury the idea in the bud.

- But the state has an iron argument against such projects: "There is no money."

“The state has money. Just do not smear them like semolina on the table, quoting famous characters. To create such cities, it will be necessary to concentrate investments, “taking away” funds from inefficient programs. This requires political will. And such a decision should be comprehensively prepared economically, socially, and so on - in all aspects. No less important is the ideological content - the country will need to explain what is being done and why.

Of course, there is also a light option, which is now being talked about a lot - the creation of industry clusters. Although a big city is also a kind of “cluster” of a general orientation, capable of attracting money, business and everything else that is needed. In any case, the cluster must demonstrate higher efficiency than the environment that surrounds it. We see examples, for example, in Korea, where a shipbuilding cluster has been created. Before that, something similar was observed in Greece. By the way, few people remember that at one time there was such a thing as a “Greek miracle”. And then, as expected, the middle income trap, the rise in debt, and we've all heard what's going on with Greece today. The meat and dairy cluster in Denmark was formed back in the 19th century, now the Danes are leaders in the production of not only meat, but also equipment for the meat and dairy industry, veterinary products, vaccines, feed additives, and biochemistry. The experience of China is interesting, where a powerful impetus to the development of electroplating industries was given after the construction of huge treatment facilities, without which such enterprises cannot work (they use a lot of alkalis, acids and other chemicals and are generally very “dirty”). In our country, this turned out to be economically unprofitable, our electroplating is gradually dying. China has attracted about 40,000 electroplating enterprises to its cluster, where treatment facilities operate. Foreign partners also keep their laboratories there.

We don't have such clear examples. Unless one can recall a titanium cluster based on Soviet-era enterprises in the deposits of this metal. The largest enterprise in it is VSMPO-Avisma, which makes components for Boeings. But in any case, creating clusters does not mean mechanically “gathering everyone in one place”. The first and main task is to set things up in such a way that production efficiency is higher than the world average, otherwise the very idea of ​​a cluster loses its meaning. The country can afford several clusters, since millions of people will work there. It will have to be dispersed geographically, since not just enterprises will be needed, but also research institutes and other scientific and production structures.

- Are there clear state programs on this?

- Unfortunately not today. Although this is not the first year and not the first decade. By the way, your obedient servant was the first who wrote down this word in the state document. In 2004, I headed an expert group on the preparation of a program for the development of the military-industrial complex for 2006-10, in which we introduced this concept (it took a long time to explain to the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Economic Development and other departments what it means and where it came from, to quote a book by Michael Porter published in 1989, which we had translated in 1994 ...). But now I almost hate myself then. Especially when I am reproached that I "do not realize how useful clusters can be." Of course they can. If it's not profanity and fiction.

- The administration of Kamchatka announced its program for the development of a cluster - tourism. It is planned that by 2025, one million seven hundred thousand tourists will come to the region annually. Why is this idea bad?

- Its utopia. Today in the world tourism is an industry of extremely low profitability. Looking at a beautiful hotel that someone built in a beautiful place, one should not draw a conclusion about the wealth of the whole country. This speaks only of the prosperity of those who fly there on vacation. Hotels for wealthy tourists can only create jobs within the framework of the "social security" of the inhabitants of a particular territory. This is what happens in agricultural Turkey or in Greece. The tourism industry is not able to seriously move forward the economy of the whole country and a separate large region.

Profit is received by the one who solves other people's problems. And the global problem now is to sell what someone has produced. Everything that contributes to this (from logistics to Facebook) is profitable and promising. Other - dreams, illusions, conscientious delusions or conscious deceit.

No economist or expert can be smarter than the market. In this sense, our theories must always relate to reality. Let me explain with an illustrative example.

There is such a term - cargo cult. During the war in the Pacific between the Americans and the Japanese, the local tribes living in Micronesia built military airfields there, worked for them and lived quite well. But then the war ended, the planes flew away. The income has dried up. However, the people on the islands are simple, not experienced in economics and dialectics. They maintain the old airfield infrastructure and from time to time perform some kind of religious rites there, calling the planes back. They depict how they are landing, how they are taxiing along the runway. They argue among themselves whether the priests are sending this cargo cult correctly - since there is no effect yet ... They explain in which direction to bow and from which direction to catch the wind. But there are still no planes. And it won't.

Something in this is seen to be offensively familiar and familiar. Don't you think?

The biography of Oleg Vadimovich Grigoriev was written to clarify the concepts in the headings, and. has a permalink Photos by economist Oleg Grigoriev

Grigoriev Oleg Vadimovich biography

However, in any position Oleg Vadimovich Grigoriev remained a scientist who thought about the processes that took place in the economy in the last years of the USSR and the world economy, which Russia so rapidly entered. Political economy, which in the Soviet Union became the science of the past of capitalism, could no longer explain the signs of an impending structural crisis that appeared in the world economy. To the fact that this world crisis is a structural crisis, or, even more than that, a systemic crisis of capitalism, Grigoriev Oleg Vadimovich economist came by comparing the current state of the world economy with the assumptions and Rosa Luxembourg about the existence of a limit for development on the principle of capitalism in such a finite system as the planet Earth. The first concept of Oleg Vadimovich Grigoriev was the hypothesis of the development of capitalism as a process of creating and combining technological zones, which Mikhail has adopted today. explained historical processes from the time of the emergence of centers of capitalism in Europe to, but which he immediately abandoned, so he was fascinated by the problem that was urgent for the new Russia, which had become a developing country - namely. At the turn of the millennium, Grigoriev came to the conclusion that is the main factor for all processes in the economy. Today, few people know who is Oleg Grigoriev Wikipedia does not have a page with his name. While more known Oleg Grigoriev economist lectures which is studied in schools of economics and business, so I took the material for the biography of Oleg Vadimovich Grigoriev from the site neoconomica.ru. The site has a heading, but links to the main articles are duplicated below on this page. Grigoriev Oleg Vadimovich economist 1982 - 1989 - Researcher at the Central Economics and Mathematics Institute (CEMI) of the USSR Academy of Sciences 1989 - 1991 - TsMIPCS at the MISI. V.V. Kuibyshev 1991 - 1992 - Supreme Soviet of Russia, advisor 1992 - 1994 - employee of the RSPP Expert Institute 1994 - 1997 - State Duma, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Committee for Economic Policy 1997 - 1998 - Head of the Economic Department of the President of the Russian Federation 1998 - 1999 - Head of the Tax Policy Department and Acting deputy Chairman of the State Committee for the Development of Entrepreneurship of Russia 2000 - 2001 - Director of the Research Center "Ecosafety" of the State Committee for Nature Protection of Russia 2003 - 2004 - Deputy Director of the Russian Institute of Radio Navigation and Time 2004 - 2008 - independent specialist in state and municipal government systems 2008 – 2011 - Senior Economist of the Neocon expert consulting company Since October 2011 - Scientific supervisor of the "neoconomica" project Since June 2012 - founder and scientific director of Oleg Grigoriev's Research Center "Neoconomics" Oleg Grigoriev holds the title of First Class State Councilor Oleg Grigoriev book economist Since 2011, he has been actively engaged in teaching activities, including within the framework of specially developed copyright courses in economics Professional activity and professional interests More than 30 years professionally engaged in economics: both practical developments and fundamental research in this area As a result of many years of research, he developed his own approach to the description and functioning of the world economy. The approach is based on the idea of ​​the decisive role of the factor of division of labor in economic development The new theory provided an opportunity to understand the history of previous economic development in a new way, and also became an effective tool for forecasting and analyzing possible options for the future of the world economy. Among related areas, we should note research work in the direction of a significant reassessment of management theory, as well as the history of economics and social institutions. Research Center of Oleg Grigoriev "Neoconomics" Autonomous non-profit organization "Research Center of Oleg Grigoriev "Neoconomics" was founded in 2011 The main areas in which research work is carried out: economic development models economic and social history (last 250 years) history of social and economic institutions the theory of elites (in the context of the formation of the modern socio-economic system) municipal management and development of territories company management analysis and construction of new social institutions, assessment of their viability Oleg Grigoriev neoconomics Research works are extensive, but united by a common idea: a greater understanding of modern socio-economic processes (with the identification of their historical foundations) and forecasting (designing) socio-economic models of the future Particular emphasis is placed on finding ways out of the global economic crisis and determining the role of Russia in the post-crisis world. You can read Grigoriev's forecasts Forecast for 2014 . Oleg Grigoriev economist In 1982 he graduated from the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University with a degree in economic cybernetics. Articles and lectures by Grigoriev Oleg Vadimovich 12/29/2013 Webinar by Oleg Grigoriev Forecast for 2014 with discussion on the page FORECAST FOR 2014 FROM OLEG GRIGORIEV By project activity, we mean an activity aimed at creating a new or improving an existing routine. An emergency-experimental activity can be characterized as a reactive activity focused on an individual request that came from outside, as a result of processing which the performers gain experience in solving similar problems. This type of activity is described in detail by M. Weber; in fact, he considered it the only type of management activity What does any person do when, for one reason or another, he needs to build a control system for some large and complex object. First of all, he begins to draw a pyramid, that is, a hierarchy The firm as an institution arises as a result of an act of technological division of labor - the fragmentation of a single production process into separate operations and the organization of their mutually agreed implementation. The 2013 Nobel Prize in Economics confirmed once again that modern economic theory is not a science and it is stupid to approach it with scientific criteria. Recently, no matter how you take an article devoted to the problems of the development of the Russian economy, you will hardly come across arguments about the need to abandon liberal myths in the development of economic policy. Economist Grigoriev in "Point of View". Why is the ghost of Kudrin again hovering in the corridors of the Kremlin and the Government? Economist Grigoriev: It is pointless to talk about saving the Russian economy within the framework of the old model. A new approach needs to be developed. Economist Grigoriev: The modern state is inefficient. How to build an effective state? Oleg Grigoriev about the coming financial crisis. What is the root of Evil? And who ate the Future? Economist Grigoriev: How Gazprom is losing the domestic market Economist Grigoriev: Bubbles are already being noticed Economist Grigoriev: The movement of capital in the financial markets is a disturbing trend Economist Grigoriev: About the reduction in the number of objects for investment. Economist Grigoriev: The IMF has grown to criticism of the economics textbook. Economist Grigoriev: About measures of budget savings Economist Grigoriev: About the "second" wave of the crisis in Ukraine Economist Grigoriev: About the inflating bubble in the Russian financial market Economist Grigoriev: The mechanism of financial markets About the availability of mortgages and its consequences Economist Grigoriev: On the scientific method in modern science Lyrics about investments 02.12.2012 We recommend reading: “When the president was told about this for the first time, everything that was possible fell from him, and everything that was not possible trembled - he did not believe it” Sergey Aleksashenko about the Russian economy Economist Grigoriev: About the future of the Eurozone. Economist Grigoriev: The immediate and distant future of money, economy and state building. Economist Grigoriev: About investments in Greece. Economist Grigoriev: About psychology in financial markets. Economists: About the end of the world. About the history, the main stages of development and the future of control systems - an open lecture by Oleg Grigoriev Economist Grigoriev: An example of a decrease in the level of division of labor. Economist Grigoriev: From the life of crisis Greece. Economist Grigoriev: Here is a typical example of an absolute misunderstanding of the conditions and problems of the division of labor Economist Grigoriev: Stephen D. King, of course, cannot yet claim the laurels of his namesake and namesake, the universally recognized "master of horror." However, his description of the real horrors of the modern economy turned out to be no less exciting than the description of the fictional horrors. Economist Grigoriev: The global economic crisis has turned into a routine (we use the word routine in this case in its everyday meaning). Economist Grigoriev: Well, it finally happened, the long-awaited third quantitative easing (QE-3). They waited for him for so long that they even stopped believing. The reaction of analysts is curious. Economist Grigoriev: Current news, as always, is of little interest. The leaders of the central banks continue to speak teeth to the participants of the financial market. Those, at first, willingly believe. Nikolai Kashcheev, the head of one of the analytical divisions of Sberbank, known for his interesting and professional reviews, has run out of patience. And he wrote an angry note, one title of which is “Shameless, shameless, naked pro Economist Grigoriev: If we look closely at the main character of the series, that is, Dr. House himself, it is not difficult to see that he has all the qualities that, according to Weber, embody the "spirit of capitalism." Do Russians need a free market economy, or do the majority choose state capitalism? Visiting finam.fm Oleg Grigoriev, scientific director of the "Neoconomics" project. Economist Grigoriev: It seems that we are present at the emergence of a new fashion among economists: to write individual and collective manifestos addressed to the broad masses. Last week, 160 German-speaking economists issued a letter criticizing A. Merkel. Economist Grigoriev: Last week the main events were the speeches of ECB head M. Draghi and Fed head B. Bernanke. They expected something concrete from them, some outlines of the future financial policy, plans - in general, serious statements. Video about the forecast of the destruction of the global financial system in the near future. As long as the US remains the main country in the world, the dollar will be the most stable currency. Economist Grigoriev: In recent weeks, we have often written that nothing interesting is happening in the economy. In general, we continue to think so now. We will be asked: what about the collapse of the markets? Well, it's not that much of a downfall. Economist Grigoriev: European politicians are thinking about how they can save the eurozone and the very idea of ​​a European currency. Over the weekend, they came up with another plan. Indeed, what to do if Europe has no money? And it's very simple. Economist Grigoriev: A lot of interesting things happened over the past week. First, it became clear that the effect of the money injected by the ECB is fading away - a sharp increase in the yield of Italian government bonds has begun, which does not bode well. Economist Grigoriev: Last time in our weekly post, we started talking about financial bubbles. Let's continue the topic, since last week gave enough material for it. We, the participants of the neoconomica project, have agreed that regularly, once a week on Mondays, one of us will definitely publish something like a review of economic events in our blog. Economist Grigoriev: The unfolding global debt crisis is making a growing number of both investors and ordinary people with savings nervous. Willingly or unwittingly, there is a search for calm investment havens that can protect investments. Economist Grigoriev: According to statistics, mortgage lending in Russia continues to recover. For 11 months of 2011, 449,210 loans were issued in the amount of 613.4 billion rubles. Economist Grigoriev: Recent events have shown that the crisis, the end of which was unanimously spoken of by experts and heads of state a few months ago, has taken a new turn. The United States today is the only capable state in the West and in that part of the world that shares Western values ​​to one degree or another. Economist Grigoriev: The notorious problem of 2008 is not reduced to the question of whether V. Putin will run for a third presidential term, and if not, who will be his successor. In a sense, it doesn't matter at all. The article is devoted to understanding the structure of the state and the classification of states. Before continuing these notes, I consider it necessary to make a few methodological remarks. Having reviewed the first works of this series, as well as the course of their discussion, I saw that there is a certain gap between what I wanted to say. Republics are either parliamentary or presidential. In Russia, as you know, there is a mixed system of government: presidential-parliamentary. With regard to mixed systems, there is a rule that when they are designed, they hope to combine worthy These are scattered notes, rather, topics for future detailed research. But first, one methodological remark concerning the historical approach. The description of the historical process fundamentally depends on at what point in time the one who The most amazing thing is that no one thinks about what to do with the bureaucracy. For some time it was thought that bureaucracy was a misunderstanding. First - a relic of the monarchy (tyranny), then for a long time - the harmful influence of socialism. Biography of Oleg Vadimovich Grigoriev written for dictionaries , and . Page Grigoriev Oleg Vadimovich biography has a permalink http://site/page/oleg-vadimovich-grigorev Business and Finance 2023 emny.ru