The well-known Russian economist and publicist Mikhail Khazin spoke on his personal website on the Web about the zugzwang of the world economy and the upcoming acute systemic crisis.
According to the expert, today in the world there is a rather important and urgent problem - emission Money... The difficulty lies in the fact that the release money supply forms zugzwang, in which one has to choose the lesser of two evils. Sometimes emissions help, but they can also hinder economic growth.
Khazin believes that the issue can be realized not by distributing cash, but by creating new debts. In this case, there will be practically no problems, and new money will be formed in the economy of the states, which will be at the disposal of consumers, and inflation will be minimal. In general, the world system worked this way from 1981 to 2008, and then from 2009 to 2014. However, former US President Barack Obama stopped the emission in 2014, and Trump started it again. Why this was done, you need to figure it out.
The expert explained that there are two contours in the economy: real (production of goods and services) and financial. Since the economic system of any state is adaptive, it is possible to increase the financial sector in it relatively realistically and by rather significant amounts. The transition itself can be painful, then everything will return to normal and the system will function. But if one wants to change the share of the financial sector again, problems will arise again, even if it is a return of the economy to a more “natural” state. This is due to the specifics of independent financial markets, since transitions are possible only when assets are transferred to the real sector. In other words, markets exist only when it is possible to purchase something for money and with a long-term stable demand for products.
Free financial markets affect all prices in the state, causing them to constantly rise. If the market for elite goods grows, it means that the cost of products also increases in ordinary commodity markets. That is, as the share of financial markets grows, it is necessary to increase incomes in commodity markets, otherwise the population will become impoverished. The drop in total demand will not be offset by elite demand, since it is smaller in volume.
In such a situation, they sometimes resort to stimulating population demand and economic growth through the emission of funds. During the formation of debts, inflation is avoided in the first couples. State economy may well adapt to excess funds. However, the attracted assets are forming new financial markets and are driving even higher prices. Prices can be stabilized by a new issue aimed at maintaining private demand, but this process will lead to an increase in inflation, at a very high level of which the economic system cannot exist, since it is impossible to predict the results of work for a long time.
Today, a critical situation has emerged in the global economy, as it is clear that all the possibilities of utilizing emissions over the past 20 years have been exhausted. The world is on the verge of an acute global systemic crisis. In this situation, there are two ways out, but none of them is ideal and leads to certain negative consequences... The first is to stop stimulating private demand so that it reaches an equilibrium state with consumer income. But this will lead to a socio-political crisis. The second is to keep stimulating in the face of a sharp rise in inflation. In this case, a severe financial and economic crisis should be expected. The only question is which of the two evils is the lesser.
Alexander Meshkov
First you have to fall. However, no one wants to fall down and talk about it. But how, then, to develop a new model economic development? Moreover, the old liberal model and financial capitalism have exhausted themselves, says Mikhail KHAZIN, a well-known scientist, president of the Neocon expert consulting company.
Mikhail Khazin.
- Recently I came across the book "1968". The world celebrated the anniversary of the events that took place then in the "eurozone" and the United States, but, in my opinion, there was no serious research about what happened 40 years ago. But it was about a change in the socio-economic paradigm. The Western world was shaken by a serious crisis, not inferior in scale and depth to the current one - when, according to the center-right Nicolas Sarkozy, the former French president, a system was formed, "where everything is given to financial capital and almost nothing to the world of work." True, then the foundations of the crisis were of a socio-psychological nature, people were striving for "self-fulfillment", a high quality of life. Now the foundations of the new crisis are economic, the existence of the financial and monetary system, which was created in Bretton Woods at the end of World War II, has become questionable ...
- In my opinion, parallels should be drawn with other times. But first things first.
From the point of view of the functioning of the current economic model, the current crisis is understandable, it has clear outlines. Over the past 30 years, first in the United States and then around the world, there has been a demand stimulation system that has allowed the Western economy to develop in an expanded manner. It was built on the principle of increasing demand by increasing debt. Households, corporations borrowed and spent funds. States did the same, increasing social spending... This model reduced aggregate demand, because not only the borrowed money had to be returned, but also the interest.
Debt refinancing was ongoing. But such a system can only exist if the cost of the new loan is less than that of the old one. This model lasted as long as the lender of last resort in the world - the US Federal Reserve - cut rates. In 1980, it was 19%. But by the end of 2008, in December, the Fed's discount rate became zero. That's it, the model has exhausted itself, the crisis has begun.
- But the crisis phenomena appeared even earlier - in the early 2000s ...
- You must understand: when you have debt refinancing, financial "bubbles" inevitably inflate somewhere, sometimes they burst. This is the first thing. In addition, you need to understand that the rate on a real loan stopped even earlier, that is, refinancing became impossible somewhere in 2005-2006. Then a break followed. Today, the expenses of farms in the West are greater than their income. Different numbers are given. According to our estimates, this gap is about 25% of GDP. This means that in the modern West, people spend more than they earn.
In the current situation, the level of consumption will fall. World GDP will also fall. It will shrink by more than 25%, because with a fall in demand, incomes also fall. Today there are two options for changing the state of affairs. The first is to support demand at all costs. The United States of America is following this path. They are increasing the budget deficit, taking advantage of the fact that they had less than Italy and Greece. President Obama has increased the budget deficit by one trillion dollars a year. All this money goes to support social programs.
- What is he counting on when the money runs out?
- As far as I understand, for Obama key moment- elections. As soon as he wins or loses them, the crisis will take on new shapes. The US urges Europe to tighten its belts tighter, but at the same time it gives money to Greece and Spain to refinance their debts. The main problem is that if you stop paying them today, the financial system will collapse. Why? Because these debts are not of someone, but of banks. Therefore, massive bankruptcy will begin. Of course, some money can be given to banks, but another problem arises here. With the growth of defaults, the cost of insurance of financial risks changes: it increases sharply. And bankruptcy is taking place along a different line. That is, in fact, it will no longer be possible to keep the world financial system in a more or less stable state in the next 3-5 years. The question of when it will "fall down" is not economic, but political.
- When will the "X hour" come?
- It will depend on the behavior different countries... Ms Merkel said, for example, that while she is alive, Germany will not pay the debts of Spain and Italy. These debts could be paid by other states as well. But the problem is that in Europe you cannot pay for something if Germany does not pay. You cannot raise money for some family for hungry children, explaining that their mother is on vacation in the Canary Islands.
Chicago. November 16, 1930.
This is the global model. Therefore, the crisis caused by a drop in aggregate demand due to the inability to refinance debts will continue. It started in 2008. But then it was flooded with liquidity, and the crisis became slower by analogy with the early 1930s in the United States. There it lasted a little less three years, from the spring of 1930 to the end of 1932. The rate of decline was about 1% of GDP per month, and it all ended in the Great Depression. How will the crisis end this time? We have not yet finished moving down the trajectory of the decline, we have covered about 10-12% of this path (in the world). Not more. And we still have to fall and fall.
- But if these trends apply to Russia, then you will have to cut the budget, cut some programs ...
- With regard to Russia, we are primarily concerned with oil prices. During periods of high emission, prices always rise faster. The last major issue was on February 29, when the European Central Bank printed half a trillion euros. This gave an approximately three-month impetus to the growth of oil prices, and in May they went down. If neither the United States nor Europe starts printing money, the oil price may drop to $ 60-70 per barrel, and then, of course, we will have a full "ah" with the budget.
Option two - if money is printed, the oil price will jump, but not as much as we would like. But at the same time, inflationary processes will begin in the world. And since the Russian economy is import-oriented, the country will have a very high consumer inflation... She is already rather big.
As you can see, the prospects for the economy, taking into account global trends in our country, are not bright. Perhaps, due to inflation, it will be necessary to somehow compensate for social expenses, which cannot be cut. That is, it is possible that there will be a gap in the budget.
- We just sighed freely: we paid off our national debts ...
- I would not be too happy about this. After all, in fact, we have transferred state debts to corporate debts. And what's the point? Previously, the state was a debtor, now it is Gazprom. Are you ready to bankrupt Gazprom? Me not...
- With the current growth rates (some economists talk about the “inertial path of development”), we will not be able to catch up with the developed countries in the coming years and even decades, since they will not stand still either. Therefore, they started talking about the need for a "technological breakthrough". Note: the "national projects" were also preceded by a discussion ...
- The national projects were an attempt to compensate for the previous omissions of the government in the 90s, to patch the hole that was formed in the economy as a result of the “genius” policy of Gaidar's followers, who invested practically nothing in the sectors of the national economy. As for the "technological breakthrough". To start it, you need to really imagine what goals we are pursuing and what kind of world we live in.
We have been writing about the crisis of work and articles for 10 years now. It is becoming more and more obvious that we are right, that the economic models and processes that we describe are taking place, but have you heard that our developments are voiced by those who make decisions? I was invited to speak in Kazakhstan at an economic forum and in Uzbekistan at a public economic event. But in Russia, all discussions about the crisis are not welcome. We proceed from logic that it will not happen. The liberal school of economics has a complete monopoly on truth, in which there are not even words to describe this crisis; she cannot admit that she was in something wrong, that she does not understand something. These gentlemen simply ignore many of the real processes taking place in the economy.
- Academician Glazyev, developing his theory of technological orders, notes that the fifth order, we, one might say, overslept, used copies. But there would be no happiness, but misfortune helped. "In backward countries, as a rule, there are no significant production capacities of the aging technological order and the resistance of socio-economic institutions to their destruction is relatively small, which ... facilitates the creation of production and technical systems of a new technological order," the scientist writes. He says that we have more opportunities to master the new, sixth technological order. And he names such "points of growth" as nanotechnology, molecular biology. And other economists say: they say, it is necessary not only to create “points of growth”, but to develop the entire national economy as an integral organism ...
- All the same, without "points of growth" economic development does not work, the only question is whether it is one or a hundred of them. It is clear that it is easier to move one growth point. But it's not that. The whole theory of "growth points" works in a situation of general economic recovery. We have now entered a long-term recession, when innovation does not pay off. For this reason, financing innovative processes is fraught with ... They do not survive on their own. This is a big problem, and I don't know how to solve it yet. I do not exclude that we (the whole world) will face a rather serious technological degradation. Roughly the same as in Russia in the 90s.
- At a time when there was a "Great Depression" in the West, we scraped out everything we could, but thanks to the equipment we acquired abroad or technology made on its basis, we carried out industrialization ...
- What did Stalin do in the 1930s? In fact, he solved the problem posed by Stolypin. Then, at the beginning of the 20th century, economic progress was associated primarily with mechanical engineering. But for it to work smoothly, it was necessary that someone bought the products of this industry. The individual peasant could not buy a tractor. Wealthy, wealthy peasants could do it. That is why Stolypin wanted to form large farms on the basis of the kulaks. And as a result, he predetermined the subsequent civil war in the village. His program ended in failure. But Stalin did differently: he created collective farms. A superstructure appeared, which became a consumer of engineering products. And this program ended in success.
- You probably want to say that in relation to modern conditions now the situation is different ...
- Quite right. In the 1930s, innovation was mechanical engineering, and today, nanotechnology. But how do you get a person who has no money to buy a roll for a child to buy some nanotechnological product? That's the whole problem. Innovation will never go into a falling market.
Americans in the early 80s introduced a demand stimulation program only because they had a crisis in the 70s and they could not launch a new wave of innovation in those years. That is what we call information technologies today. But when they began to stimulate demand, they used this wave - they destroyed the USSR and won. But the trouble is that today this instrument of stimulating demand has already been exhausted.
- Why are you so sure that the economic decline cannot be stopped and the global crisis will last until it has passed its entire trajectory? Is humanity really so powerless that it cannot master the rational forms of labor organization?
- Few people here pay attention to the fact that there are two economic sciences in the world. One is called political economy, invented by Adam Smith at the end of the 18th century. Then it was very actively developed by Karl Marx, after which it acquired pronounced Marxist features. And the West, as an ideological alternative, decided to come up with another economic science called "economics". So, in those places where political economy says yes, economics says no, and vice versa. Political economy believes that capitalism is finite, for this reason "economics" says: capitalism is infinite. And, in principle, he does not consider the concepts from which the finiteness of capitalism follows.
But the end of capitalism was not invented by Marx, but, oddly enough, by the same Adam Smith. This social system appeared in the 16th-17th centuries. Contemporaries, observing the economy, drew attention to the fact that development under capitalism is a deepening of the division of labor. And then Smith took the next step: he explained that if there is a closed system, then in it it cannot rise above a certain "bar". Any economic system at some point reaches such a level of division of labor that it needs to expand for further development. Hence the conclusion: when markets become global, capitalist development will stop. For Smith and even for Marx it was an abstraction, but you and I today live in a world ruled by global markets. Therefore, innovation cannot pay off by economic reasons... Because for their payback it is necessary to expand markets, but this does not work.
- There are two options for the development of post-industrial society - favorable and unfavorable. You, as I understand it, are leaning towards the second of them ...
- No, my opinion is that there is no post-industrial society at all. Let me explain what the matter is. Imagine you had a factory where all people worked together. Then it was divided into workshops, which are located at a great distance from each other, and as a result, the plant management decided that it had built a separate industrial area - a post-industrial society. But it exists only due to the presence of workshops. Therefore, as soon as there is a crisis in those workshops, the entire so-called "post-industrial society" crumbles ... These are fairy tales that were composed to retroactively justify the super profits of the highest quintile groups.
- All the time you talk only about the economy. However, according to some scientists, the lack of enlightenment of our society in matters of morality, its unpreparedness for drastic socio-psychological changes led to depopulation in the 90s and other negative consequences. Some even believe that sociologists, psychologists and educators should be more in control of society than economists and lawyers ...
- I am not a sociologist, I am engaged in economics and speak about what I am responsible for. One thing is clear to me: our society does not accept liberal ideology with its complete lack of morality. Either the existing system will collapse, or society itself will be destroyed. One out of two.
- But the “knowledge economy”, “development economy” open up new perspectives for people, opportunities for its improvement, reforming ...
- Maybe, but when they start to destroy, it’s not up to knowledge and not up to education. I really want to eat. When there is nothing to eat, people start to get nervous.
“As one German writer said:“ To the rich, talking about bread seems base. This is because they have already eaten. "
- More or less like this.
- It turns out that we have now come to a stage of development when some primary needs, which seemed to have been overcome for a long time, and society was solving issues of spiritual development, self-improvement, “self-realization”, quality of life, etc., again become dominant.
- Yes, this is correct.
- How to solve them?
- It is impossible to solve them within the framework of modern financial capitalism.
- But isn't the world social thought working out various options for humane development?
- All Western theories are built within the framework of liberal ideology (economics is only a part of it), and it is forbidden to talk about the end of capitalism in it.
- But the list of different directions is not limited to them alone. There are thinkers whose work has a social connotation. John Galbraith, for example.
- Galbraith died quite recently, his works are from the 1950s-1960s. He was, of course, a brilliant economist, and today the ideological "mainstream" does not welcome him very much. American Joseph Stiglitz, demoted from The World Bank the heretic is also trying to do something, proving that he is an honest man, that not everyone has sold out for money yet. For this he is constantly subjected to moral and ideological pressure.
Yes, there are people who are trying to get out of the quagmire. So we are trying the same. But in order to do something, you need to look at life soberly. The main question today is: what will be the model of economic development, and how much we will fall as a result of this crisis. You see, talking about development before we fall is meaningless.
- And how to rise and find strength for further development ...
- This model is needed. But first you have to fall. And nobody wants to fall. Nobody wants to say it out loud. A modern politician cannot say: tomorrow we will live worse than today. This is impossible. He must say: no, we will live better.
- Now there are probably fewer pessimists among religious leaders than among economists. Foretelling the end of the world ...
- Do not confuse the end of the world and the crisis.
- A crisis from which we will get out after all.
- Of course we'll get out.
From the dossier "RG"
Khazin Mikhail Leonidovich
Born in 1962. Studied at Yaroslavl State University and Moscow State University, majoring in mathematician. In 1984-1991. worked in the system of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, in 1993-1994. - in the Work Center economic reforms under the government of the Russian Federation, in 1995-1997. - Head of the Department of Credit Policy of the Ministry of Economy of Russia, in 1997-1998. - Deputy Head of the Economic Department of the President of the Russian Federation. In 1998 he left the civil service. Today - the president of the company of expert consulting "Neocon". Author of the acclaimed book "The Decline of the Dollar Empire and the End of Pax Americana".
It was Khazin who laid the foundations for global crisis management in Russia. Suffice it to recall a number of his articles of 2006 and the conclusion of November 27, 2007: "The collapse of the world financial system: only a few days left."
Crisis on demand?
RG: American economist Lester Thurow, who wrote back in the 70s that the United States had become dependent on China, and this would ruin them, is claiming the laurels of a "predictor of the crisis" with you. How do you feel about Turow's ideas?
Mikhail Khazin / Something needs to be clarified here. main reason the current crisis - the so-called "Reaganomics", that is, the policy of stimulating the final demand in the United States, both public and private. The export of production from the United States to China was a response to the beginning difficulties in the American economy, and for this reason it could in no way serve as the cause of the crisis.
And as for me and my colleagues ... We understood that the collapse of the United States was possible back in 1997, but then, due to the specifics of the civil service, where I was, I could not insist on this. And our first article, published in July 2000 in Expert magazine, was titled "Will the United States Achieve Apocalypse?" The question mark was removed only in 2001, after we undertook a study of the interindustry balance of the United States, when the scale of the imbalances became clear.
RG: That is, you started to sound the alarm already in 2001, claiming that a crisis was inevitable?
Khazin: Exactly. But they did not listen to us.
RG: What can you say about the opinion that in fact the crisis was set up by the Americans themselves in order to "save the world" on favorable terms for themselves, as they did after World War II ("the Marshall plan")?
Khazin: As Stanislavsky used to say to his friend Nemirovich-Danchenko: "I don't believe!" Too strong economic and socio-political consequences for them arise. But as soon as they realized that the crisis could not be avoided, they began to use it as much as possible for their own benefit - yes, of course, I believe.
RG: That is, the Americans will deal with themselves - at least in terms of overcoming their own crisis?
Khazin: Probably. And as President Medvedev rightly noted in his recent message, they will come out of the crisis, despite the problems caused by this crisis in many other countries.
Why is the dollar so omnipotent?
RG: Stalin was trying to untie world currencies from the dollar in the early 1950s. But they didn’t untie it. Why? And why hasn't Russia pegged the ruble, for example, to the yuan?
Khazin: Yes, in the last years of Stalin's rule, the ruble was not tied to the dollar. As for the "decoupling", back in 1944, when the Bretton Woods agreements were concluded, pegging all capitalist currencies to the dollar, and it, in turn, to gold, the US economy accounted for more than 50 percent of the world. And now in terms of production - only 20 percent. But in terms of consumption - 40 percent. And how will you untie your currency, if it is in the United States that you sell a significant part of your products and actually live on it? China, Japan, the European Union are now living on exports to the United States. How are you going to cancel it? Yes, it would be nice to do it, but how?
RG: And what, is it not possible to introduce national or other currencies in foreign trade?
Khazin: It is difficult in the current conditions. First of all, because world trade is still heavily dollarized. And other money should, let's say, be filled with goods, services and, therefore, made popular. Only then will they be able to compete with the dollar.
RG: That is, it won't work out quickly?
Khazin: Hardly. Because this requires innovative content and rapid innovative development of the economy. That is, we need not a raw material, but an industrial vector of development, including the development of exports. Then the ruble will become much more reliable than the "raw" ruble.
RG: The ideas of a new world economic order have been wandering in the minds since the 50s, they were especially popular in the third world. Maybe it's time to implement these ideas? So the Russian president is talking about a new economic world order ...
Khazin: Well, it's one thing to say, and another thing to really do. Third world countries have actually been maneuvering between the two superpowers - and sometimes quite successfully. They had no intention of destroying one of them, thereby depriving themselves of such a wonderful maneuver. Yes, in 1971, the United States was forced to admit its default - it abandoned the gold backing of the dollar, but all the same, the so-called "Jamaican" system, which replaced the "pure" Bretton Wood, put the dollar at the forefront - precisely because it was the dollar was built, and even today the entire system of world finance is worth it.
RG: Is the dollar really indefinite?
Khazin: The dollar performs two functions at once: it is the world reserve and trade currency, a single measure of value, after all. On the other hand, it is the national currency of the United States. And while the US accounted for 50 percent of the global economy, the contradictions between these functions were negligible. And now they have become dominant. The US is printing the dollar to improve its domestic economic situation, but at the same time weakening it as a world currency. That is why there are problems in many countries where the dollar is influential. And if the United States had "held" it as a world currency, the crisis there would have been much stronger (and would have begun long ago). This is the root of the problem.
When did Russia "slow down"?
RG: Does this mean that the dollar and the "petrodollar" are closely interrelated? But at what point did Russia begin to "slow down," that is, irrational use of oil windfall profits? And why?
Khazin: Yes, from the very beginning! This money is up real sector practically did not reach - in particular, in innovation processes, development of new technologies, training, etc. In fact, money "dissolved" earlier. And it could not be otherwise, because these issues are now often solved by such financiers, many of whom, in principle, do not understand how the enterprise works. Note that this is a global problem, with the possible exception of China. It's just that we have it more and more manifested and started earlier. So, in my opinion, the oil money did not go to us for the future - yes, it allowed us, mainly, to increase the consumption of imports, especially food imports. And now, after a sharp drop in oil prices, such a situation will begin to "break". However, how can long-term industrial projects be outlined when their financing actually depends on "petrodollars" in the first place, given such significant fluctuations in oil prices?
RG: But then, how long will the Russian budget, together with all its reserves, be enough if oil and gas prices continue to fall in the world?
Khazin: There are different estimates. The most pessimistic - that even before the New Year may not be enough. Optimistic - that's enough, and for a long time. Here, again, a lot depends on world prices for energy raw materials and monetary policy... But I do not think that oil prices will quickly return to their previous highs. First of all, because cheap oil is profitable and needed by the United States, the European Union, Japan, that is, the main "points" of the world economy and financial system. Cheap oil is unprofitable for Russia. This is perhaps the main contradiction between the Russian Federation and the "American bloc" in the field of oil and general economic policy.
RG: We will now tell you our point of view, and you will correct us, if necessary. The so-called Russian state capitalism recent years was that the state created mega-corporations that began to buy up private business. This required loans that were taken in the West. Hence the gigantic corporate debts, which are now the main threat to Russia. Do you agree with this? And if so, why did state corporations begin to buy ready-made capacities from private businesses?
Khazin: Well, they received part of the money for the purchase from the state. As for the purchase ... If such a corporation is run by a financier (or someone who imagines himself to be a financier), then, in most cases, he does not understand the specifics of a particular production.
RG: Are you repeating yourself because this aspect is very important?
Khazin: Yes very. Let's say such a financier is told that to develop such and such a technology (or purchase), for example, $ 100 million is needed. He estimates according to his criteria and says: I will give you 200, but you will return 100. He is told that this is impossible: the technology costs 100, and at least 40 more may be required for its adjustment, including the training of specialists, the training of engineers, and so on. And in his understanding - the proportions are different, and you don't need to cook anyone. There are an abundance of financiers of this kind today. And there are no necessary new generation technologists on the market. That is, today again the same question - "Cadres decide everything!"
RG: But are small and medium-sized businesses already working, albeit with difficulties?
Khazin: Yes it works. They are trying to "embrace" him in order to survive and at his expense. Explaining to its owners that the most they can count on is a place on a good salary in a large office. As a result, usually after such operations, the innovative part of small and medium-sized businesses simply quietly dies. I know many such precedents ...
Moving on to "bunnies"?
RG: Is it possible that Belarus and Turkmenistan will become the economic leaders in the post-Soviet space, which by their policy of "pragmatic isolationism" and all-encompassing state control over the economy have ensured that the crisis touches them to a much lesser extent?
Khazin: Why not? But they are too small. However, imagine that a policy similar to economic policy, for example, Belarus, we would have led all these years! Then we could today, in my opinion, dictate our conditions to many. More precisely, I mean the policy of all possible stimulation of industrial growth.
RG: Is it good or bad that Russia has not yet joined the WTO? Will we ever end up there? And maybe on better terms than were presented to us in recent years?
Khazin: I am not sure that the WTO in its current form will exist in a couple of years. For the current crisis will most likely continue and destroy the global financial, monetary and trading systems, so there will almost certainly not be a modern WTO. Modern system world trade, controlled by the WTO, or rather, by the West, is gradually disintegrating. What will happen in return is still difficult to say. It is possible that these will be regional trading blocs, rather than a global organization.
Gold for all time?
RG: Since we are economists-journalists, acquaintances and colleagues often ask us in recent days what to store savings. We advise them - in Swiss francs. Maybe we advise nonsense?
Khazin: Well, and this, in principle, is possible. But you have forgotten the yuan, and gold coins are not worthy of keeping savings today? The problem with savings is that the situation will change quickly enough: some currencies will rise and then fall just as quickly, so “expensive” assets cannot be sold quickly, and so on. As they say in a famous joke: "The Ukrainian night is dark, but the bacon needs to be hidden!" - If people want to shift assets every week, then you certainly won't give them any advice. However, such transfers are unlikely to be effective.
RG: Well, all the same. Many experts advise to return to keeping your savings primarily in gold ...
Khazin: Yes, I am convinced that the most profitable long-term investment today they are gold coins. Today they are much more reliable than foreign currencies. Previous crises also showed that savings in gold were, one might say, safer. And even they were multiplied, in contrast to cash savings. As for our conditions and the ruble itself, it is advisable, in my opinion, to keep the "accumulated" in rubles in any bank. The main thing is that the deposit is less than 700,000 rubles.
RG: How do you think the prices for gasoline and food will behave in Russia? And what will happen to the social support system, primarily to the pension system?
Khazin: The state, in my opinion, will strive to fully support social system, because it has not only socio-economic significance for the state and society. The real purchasing power of these pensions and benefits in the context of rising prices is another matter. Prices for gasoline in our country may fall, since world oil prices are falling (but, of course, not as significantly as oil prices), but the share of gasoline costs in family budget may grow. The main thing here is the size and prospects of this budget, not to mention the pricing policy of the gasoline business, to be more precise - oil companies... And finished food in the world is not getting cheaper at all, and the share of imports in Russian food consumption is still high and, according to a number of forecasts, may even increase.
RG: In other words, will the structure of consumer demand change, which will also affect prices?
Khazin: That's it! The crisis will greatly change and is already beginning to change the structure of prices, and the structure of consumption. And I do not exclude that families and average incomes will have to limit their consumption, be it gasoline or food.
Recorded by Evgeny Arsyukhin, Alexey Chichkin
Dossier WG
History of world crises
The first world economic crisis of 1857-1859 began in the United States, then spread to Europe. The reasons are massive bankruptcies of railway companies and the collapse of the stock market.
The crisis of 1873-1876 began with Austria-Hungary and Germany. The preconditions were credit boom in Latin America, fueled by England, and speculative boom in real estate markets in Germany and Austria-Hungary. In the United States, banking panic began after a sharp drop in shares on the New York Stock Exchange and the bankruptcy of the chief financier and president of the United Pacific Railroad, Jay Cook.
In 1914, a crisis began due to the outbreak of war. The main reason is the urgent total sale of securities of foreign issuers by the governments of the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany to finance military operations.
The fourth world crisis (1920-1923) is associated with post-war deflation (an increase in purchasing power national currency) and recession (production decline). It began with banking and currency crises, first in Denmark, then in Norway, Italy, Finland, Holland, USA and Great Britain.
1929-1933 - "Great Depression", which spread from the United States to most countries in the world
The sixth crisis began in 1957 and lasted until mid-1958. It covered the USA, Great Britain, Canada, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and many other capital countries. It was caused by overproduction, the collapse of the colonial system, the rise in oil prices (due to the joint aggression of Israel, Great Britain and France against Egypt in the fall of 1956).
The 1973-1975 crisis began with the United States and is primarily associated with the "oil embargo" against the West by most of the major oil-exporting countries in the fall of 1973.
Black Monday: On October 19, 1987, the American stock index Dow Jones Industrial plunged 22.6 percent, followed by the collapse of the American market in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong, South Korea, and many Latin American countries. This was due to the outflow of investors from those markets after a strong decrease in the capitalization of several of the largest multinational and regional companies.
1997 - East Asian crisis, the largest fall in the Asian stock market after World War II. It arose primarily due to the departure of foreign investors from most of the countries of Southeast Asia and from many of the Far Eastern "industrial dragons". Reduced global GDP by $ 2 trillion.
1998 - Russian crisis, one of the most difficult in the history of Russia. Reasons: growing government debt, low world prices for raw materials, especially energy, and the pyramid of GKOs, for which the Russian government was unable to pay off on time.
