Alexander Meshkov
First you have to fall. However, no one wants to fall down and talk about it. But how, then, to work out a new model of 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 on 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, 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 consumption level will fall. World GDP will also fall. It will shrink by more than 25%, because when demand falls, 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, the key moment for Obama is the 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 in order to refinance their debts. After all, the main problem is that if you stop paying them today, then it collapses financial system... 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 is changing financial risks: it increases dramatically. And bankruptcy is taking place along a different line. That is, in fact, it will not 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 of 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 price of oil 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 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 that was possible, but thanks to the equipment 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 for someone to buy 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 XVI-XVII 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 others. negative consequences... Some even believe that society in to a greater extent sociologists, psychologists and educators must govern 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. "
- Like that.
- 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, that's right.
- 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, a heretic demoted from the World Bank, 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 this out loud. A modern politician cannot say: tomorrow we will live worse than today. It's 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.
Mikhail Khazin The Black Swan of the World Crisis
© Khazin M. L., 2017
© Design. Palmira Publishing House LLC, T8 Publishing Technologies JSC, 2017
© LLC Group of Companies "RIPOL Classic", 2017
Foreword
The professionals involved in solving crimes have a wonderful expression - "Lying as an eyewitness." It is connected, as is clear, with the fact that people remember the past very, very selectively, they remember well the moments that remind of something important to them, and easily forget what does not cause emotions. They very easily "glue" different memories under the influence of external forces (radio, television, conversations with others), succumb to the influence of stronger people, tend to create "virtual reality" that justifies their not the most beautiful behavior ...
In general, it is very difficult to reconstruct the real picture of events even from the observations of direct witnesses (who need to be repeatedly questioned, and sometimes even arranged face-to-face confrontations, at which it is necessary to verify, recheck and clarify various “virtual realities”). And if we are talking about restoring the real picture in conditions when certain forces deliberately obscure it and after several years ... Here the task becomes much more complicated.
There are many examples. One of the key periods allowing us to understand what is actually happening in the economy today is the 70s of the last century. And, if you recall the studies of the 1980s, with which I met back in the USSR, I always proceeded from the fact that this was a period of permanent crisis in the Western economy. But from the end of the 70s, one of the directions began to prevail in Western economic science, which gradually monopolized its position (conditionally it can be called liberal fundamentalism). And in accordance with this direction, crises are of only one type, the so-called cyclical, the peaks of which are sometimes called recessions, and the duration of these recessions is limited (conditionally, say, 24 months).
I deliberately do not specify the meaning of these terms in the "mainstream" meaning, since this, as you will see below, does not have much meaning. This is just one of the ways to describe reality, and today we can safely say that it is not the most successful, since a number of phenomena of today's reality cannot be described within the framework of this terminology.
The important thing is that the reality of the 70s did not fit into the "mainstream" theory, which for some time has been claiming to be absolute truth. And, as a consequence, its adherents constantly rewrote the methods of statistical data processing in order to prove that the theory cannot be wrong. In the end, they achieved success (as the legend says, Stalin once said: “It doesn't matter how they vote, the main thing is who counts!”), Today in all textbooks (monopoly) it is written that the 70s are just two close recessions, separated by a brief but growth period. However, this phenomenon is not entirely alien to science: my programming teachers explained to me in the 70s that the program is being rewritten until it starts to give results acceptable to the authors.
Let us also recall that since the beginning of the twentieth century, there are two economic sciences in the world - political economy and economics, which are in tough competition. After 1991, political economy found itself in a terrible corral, but (in our country) it survived - and here the crisis began, which, as it turned out, cannot be described in the language of economics (in any case, there is still no theory of a modern crisis in the "mainstream" ), but on the basis of political economy it is described perfectly.
Actually, our theory, more or less fully created just at the time of the development of the first events described in this book, and built not on economics, but on political economy, suggests that the crisis of the 70s, like the crisis of the early 20th century Like the Great Depression, like the current crisis that began in 2008, this is a phenomenon fundamentally different from what is described by such a “cyclical” term as “recession” (or, in the language of political economy, the crisis of overproduction). This is, in reality, a structural crisis associated with a drop in capital efficiency in the context of the impossibility of expanding markets. And, accordingly, attempts to fit it into the recession patterns lead to the fact that all sorts of roughness and inconsistencies inevitably come to the surface. In theoretical works, this is not so important, but using such a theory to explain real problems in a crisis it is simply unacceptable.
The trouble is that each such roughness in itself is an insignificant and not very memorable phenomenon. For example, I have noted many times that US statistics showed economic growth (or a decrease in unemployment) in their official figures, which was accompanied by a decrease in the length of the work week or capacity utilization. Or else - when the indicators of the GDP deflator (which is fundamentally important for calculating the GDP, which is why it is constantly underestimated) "jump out" of the segment that is formed by the indicators of consumer and industrial inflation. Both are a clear indicator of falsification of statistics, but it must be borne in mind that US statistical agencies are constantly reviewing statistics in accordance with the most "advanced" methodology, and for this reason, returning to the past figures, very often you see a completely different picture. than the one that was just a few months ago.
And if you add massive propaganda to this (for example, the government's constant howling about economic growth and success in social support of the population, as is the case in our country), then it becomes even more difficult to understand what is happening and how. Even I, with all my understanding economic processes and, in general, the administrative mechanisms of the government, must constantly make serious enough efforts in order to remember exactly how things were at one time or another. In reality, and not within the framework of a lacquered and reduced to the "only correct" picture. The easiest way is to give examples from the mid-90s, when I was directly involved in many processes (and even managed to stop some outrages), and then I followed the events quite closely.
You can recall, for example, the history of defaults in 1998. There were two of them: banking and sovereign, and the first could not be avoided, since the government kept the ruble overvalued for a long time at the expense of budget funds, and it inevitably had to collapse as soon as the budget ran out of money. But declaring a sovereign default, that is, refusing to pay on obligations denominated in the national currency (the notorious GKOs), was something new in the world. financial history... From the point of view of the country's interests, it was a crime, but the team of organizers of the default (Chubais, Dubinin, Aleksashenko, Zadornov, Kudrin and Ignatiev) proceeded from personal and corporate interests.
From the point of view of the state, I repeat once again, it was a crime, but almost all of its participants, with the exception of Aleksashenko, succeeded quite well after the default. Which is natural, since their power group (in terms of the book "Stairway to Heaven") remained in power. But they absolutely do not want to remember the real development of the situation (the time of criminal liability has already passed, unfortunately, but political responsibility has no statute of limitations), and therefore you will hardly hear the plural of the word “default” in relation to the events of 1998. From the point of view of the liberal political team, this event must be firmly forgotten.
Many more examples can be cited. In particular, almost everyone who received economic Education within the framework of liberal economic theory (and today, let me remind you, it has a practically monopoly on truth in economic theory), they know for sure that the only currency that has never been defaulted is the US dollar. All attempts to discourage them and remind them that only in the last century the United States declared a default at least twice (in 1933 and 1971) end in vain: their textbooks simply say that these events (the closure of the entire banking system, t. n. bank holidays, a sharp devaluation of the dollar against gold and, finally, the abandonment of the "gold standard" on August 15, 1971) are not a default. People who have experienced these events, of course, would hardly agree with such statements, but the modern reader is unlikely to be able to get acquainted with their opinion.
The last time we spoke with the famous Russian economist Mikhail Khazin was in the spring of 2013, when nothing boded trouble. But even then he said that a "tedious and protracted" crisis awaits us.
And he was right.
In general, crises, that is, situations when it is necessary to somehow solve a heap of accumulated contradictions - this is his specialization. Mikhail Leonidovich considers the creation of a kind of map with the help of which businessmen and politicians can pave their way as an applied task of his theoretical research. The map that Mr. Khazin drew to the participants of the Business Territory 2019 regional forum is rather a political map of the world. But this information can be very useful in order not to panic or euphoria at every news of a change in the exchange rate or the announcement of the next sanctions.
- Now our entrepreneurs are in a state of high uncertainty. Political cataclysms, cessation of growth ... Can you suggest any strategy for the business community in the region, give your recommendations?
“Today, entrepreneurs feel the same way as a driver in a dense fog. I cannot tell the business how to behave. It's impossible. I can only show you some kind of map: if you go there, then there will be such and such, if in the other direction, then such and such. But where to go, entrepreneurs have to choose on their own.
- In our region there are representatives of both small and large business, people of different political convictions, from different sectors of the economy, at various sites they ask the authorities: what is your strategy, where is the region moving, what is primary? But officials somehow evade answering ...
- There are no ideas in general in the system of executive power. Even the federal government has no strategy at all. Why do liberals need a strategy? The market's invisible hand will do it all. But this is also not a strategy, and for a captain who has no goal, not a single wind will be favorable. What is the point of talking about regions, capitals, their interaction when there is no understanding of where and why we are moving? At the regional level, it is even less so. In the system of relations that has been built for 25 years, the regions do not have the right to vote. Therefore, it makes no sense to expect something from your officials. In fact, there are ideas in Russia. Here we have an obvious advantage over other countries, since we have retained alternative currents in economic science. If there is a request, then it is possible to quickly implement these ideas.
- When you were going to Kirov, did you somehow study our economic realities or deliberately abstain from them?
- I am not interested in this issue in principle. About your region, I can only say that when I learned that Nikita Belykh became your governor, I realized that there would be no prospects for business in the region.
- More than three years have passed since his arrest ...
- So far I have not seen anything new. At the federal level, it is noticeable when a reversal occurs in a particular region. Yes, I understand perfectly well that after the Belykh, things are going badly with you. First you need to bring it up, it can take a long time, but after that you need to come up with new ideas.
- In general, at the local or regional level, do the authorities have any leverage to change the situation, or in Russia this is basically impossible?
- This is a difficult question. In fact, you can do quite a lot to develop your business in a particular region or even in a city. I have such experience. I wrote a development program for the city of Aktyubinsk in Kazakhstan. True, more than 10 years have passed since then. Nevertheless, many of the ideas from there can be adapted for Kirov as well. But this is consulting work. You have to sit down and do it seriously.
- Now in our region, when it comes to national projects, first of all, the construction of kindergartens, schools, quantoriums flashes ... People of the right-conservative wing have a question: “Okay, they have built it, and at whose expense will the region support this?” ...
- We should not forget that if you do not have such a social infrastructure, then people must independently spend money on it. When it appears, additional funds are released that the population can spend more efficiently. Yes, during the construction of a kindergarten, we deprive nannies of work, but at the same time we get a pronounced positive effect of scale, plus we withdraw funds from the shadows.
- Can there be a shortage of such services or an outstripping rise in prices for them, including, for example, medicine - is this not only a problem of Kirov or Russia, but a global trend in general?
- Any product or service can exist on the market in three states. The first option is luxury. In fact, the buyer of one unit must pay for everything needed to create it. Roughly speaking, in addition to directly consulting a diagnostician, you have to pay the full price for a tomograph. The second option is a regular product. The necessary equipment for the provision of this service has already been purchased, which creates conditions for a sharp drop in the margin. The third state is when a product or service becomes an infrastructure. In this case, the state assumes responsibility for maintaining the proposal, and the margin may even become negative. In the USSR, education, medicine, etc. used to be an infrastructure, now they have become a commodity and are gradually turning into luxury goods, when to get a normal education you need to spend about 400 thousand rubles a year for a child. Another example, in the USA telephone communications and the Internet is a classic commodity. And in our country they have become infrastructure even without the direct participation of the state. At a certain point in time, communication services moved into the category of infrastructure, when consumers began to give preference to subscription fees. Therefore, they are much cheaper in our country compared to America.
- About models and their predictive power. When you gave an interview to Navigator 6.5 years ago, you identified two very important things: the protracted nature of the crisis and the oil price corridor. How did you manage to foresee the development of the situation so accurately? Do you have a forecast for the next 6-7 years?
- In 2013, when we talked with you, there was already a theory, although without some details. Actually, on its basis, I made my predictions. According to my theory, we are now dealing with the last crisis of capitalism, but this does not mean that humanity is heading towards the end of history. Economic models don't last forever.
But this state of affairs complicates predictions. Now we come to the bifurcation point. That is, to a state where the entire world economic system goes into a chaotic regime. From this point you can "fly out" in any direction. If we reach this point within the next six years, it will be simply impossible to make a prediction.
I can only guess how the situation will develop if everything goes more or less orderly. In this case, by 2023 we will approach the “new Yalta or Bretton Woods”. That is, to a certain agreement of the forces victorious in the global confrontation. It will have to legitimize the new state. Most likely, the new status will be similar to the situation before World War I, when the world was divided into several fairly independent currency zones.
For the next 20 to 25 years, these groups of states will start building their own reproductive contours. That is, they will create in themselves those industries that did not exist, since they developed in other regions of the world in accordance with a single global system of division of labor. The second challenge will be to adapt existing industries to reduced demand.
- That is, there will be industries in which, despite the shocks, there will be growth. Whereas in other sectors, at best, you will have to be content with the existing demand.
- Yes something like that. I can assume that there will be only one region in the world where there will be economic growth - the Eurasian economic zone. A stable situation or even a slight rise is possible in Latin America, if it gains independence, and in India. Regions such as Europe, China, North America, Africa, and the Middle East will decline.
- By the way, as I understand it, Eurasia is not only the EAEU. In the same 2013, you predicted a rapprochement with Turkey, which was hard to believe then.
- Naturally, this is not only the post-Soviet space, the EAEU. We are already seeing steps in Turkey's Eurasian direction. Iran and Japan can also join it. The forecast for Japan has not yet materialized, but we and they are objectively moving towards this. This is the general outline. But such a forecast will come true if the situation develops within the framework of the regular scenario. And then, in 20-25 years, wars may start. I think it will be conflicts between peripheral states of different zones, or a new Cold War. In these conflicts, there will be a process of consolidation of zones, which we saw in the 20th century. It will take 50 - 70 years.
There is another option: a noticeably more efficient model of the economy will be formed in some currency zone. In this case, we will see a clear dominance of one of the regions of the world. By the way, during the Cold War, we did not observe such a situation. The USSR and the USA competed on approximately equal terms. Their crisis began earlier, in the 70s, but they were able to group together and offer Reaganomics, maintaining the system by expanding consumer credit... Our elites chose to capitulate.
- We have already looked ahead almost a century. For local business circles, this is interesting, but hardly applicable in practice. Maybe you can tell us about your vision of some specific industries? In which area are the most interesting prospects?
- I do not specifically deal with investment issues. I am a macroeconomist. Yes, I am considering the development of individual industries, but this is a macroeconomic, not an investment interest. And while there is no demand, I try not to go into details. But if there is a request, then it will be possible to consider specific industries, their role, their prospects in a particular territory. Again, within the framework of consulting work.
- By the way, more about industries. Now there is a loud discussion about investing the surplus of the National Welfare Fund. What area will this money come to?
- That is, you want me to tell you now, which of the lobbyists will be cooler when everything is over? (Laughs) Let me tell you openly and honestly: no one will offend Igor Ivanovich Sechin [Rosneft].
- Do you think it will work out? The central bank continues to object to this form of NWF investment.
- Elvira Nabiullina promotes the position of the IMF. It can be briefly formulated as follows: "The money withdrawn from Russia should not be returned back to Russia in any case." That is, it will do everything to ensure that the money of the NWF does not enter our economy under any circumstances. Of course, if another decision is made, it will not go anywhere and will have to comply. And who in this case will be the main beneficiary ... There are different opinions on this matter.
More on the topic
The cause of the riots in the south of Kazakhstan was a road conflict, said Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of the country Aleksey Kalaychidi. "Some ... more
About five years ago I was "in charge" of culture in "Komsomolskaya Pravda". Publishers sent in new items in the hope of a newspaper review. While sorting through a batch of the next waste paper, I found the book "The Decline of the Dollar Empire and the End of Pax Americana". Out of surprise, I remember, I even rubbed my eyes. It's sheer madness to encroach on early XXI century on the foundations of the world order, free market! Perhaps, by mistake, the old Brezhnev era was thrown in? Soviet American propagandists loved to bury this very American. No, fresh, published in 2003. And the authors are not Zyuganov and Anpilov, but a certain Khazin. For the sake of curiosity, flipped through sedition. The arguments seemed convincing. I gave it to our economic observer Zhenya Anisimov. Zhenya also wrote a review, and did a great interview with the author in Komsomolskaya Pravda (the first, by the way, in the mass press). Since then I have remembered that there is such an intelligent economist Mikhail Khazin. All these years I followed his performances. Khazin was true to himself: kirdyk America! Now that his fantastic prediction began to come true, I asked for an interview.
The Kremlin was fired for the forecast of default!
Mikhail Leonidovich, confess, with what high-voltage current did you feel the shock of the world financial crisis?
There was no insight. I came to the forecast gradually. In the spring of 1997, the Economic Administration of the President of the Russian Federation was created in the Kremlin. I was appointed deputy chief. The first task is to report to Yeltsin on the economic situation in Russia. While working on the report, we realized that by the end of the summer, the beginning of the fall of 1998, there would be a default in the country. Unless, of course, it is urgent to change economic policy.
Have you reported to the top? How did they react there?
Yes, in general, no way. No one, except for the deputy head of the Livshits administration and President Yeltsin himself, has read this text. But Yeltsin himself was quite constructive towards us, so I think he took it quite seriously at the time.
By the summer of 1998, we were finally survived from the presidential administration. For attempts to stop a business project called "GKO - Currency Corridor". It was the largest financial scam in the entire post-Soviet era. One and a half to two billion dollars a month floated to the West. For years! In August, as we had warned, a default struck. But by that time we were already unemployed. Nobody took us to work as enemies of the people. Liberal. And we got serious about science.
Who are we?
Yours truly and Oleg Vadimovich Grigoriev, the former head of the Economic Department. We continued to investigate the reasons for the default. All traces were in the United States. We got carried away with the device of the American market and found an amazing coincidence. Just as our GKO market sucked all the juices from Russia, so their stock market sucked the resources of the entire planet. And the ending loomed the same.
In the summer of 2000, the Expert magazine published our article "Will the USA Reach the Apocalypse?" Her conclusion: if by the spring of 1998 it was impossible to avoid a default in Russia, then in 2000 the problems of the American economy could not be stopped. The economist Kobyakov and I described the situation in more detail in the already familiar book "The Decline of the Dollar Empire and the End of Pax Americana".
How America Dumped the Fool
This means that the States did not listen to the popular song of the Lube group of the perestroika era. Young Kolya Rastorguev warned: "Don't play the fool, America!" But seriously, Mikhail Leonidovich, what is the reason for the beginning of the collapse? Now so many versions have been voiced - the devil himself will not understand! Let's just talk without tricky terms like derivatives. By God, many of our readers, like me, did not graduate from economic academies. And I want to figure it out.
I'll try. The economic model that is now causing everything to collapse emerged as a response to the dire crisis of the 70s. It was a capital glut crisis. Even the classics of political economy of the 19th century wrote: capital grows faster than labor receives its compensation. As a result, there is a problem with a lack of demand. In classical capitalism, this is solved by crises of overproduction. Under imperialism, through the export of capital. By the 70s, both methods had exhausted themselves. It was impossible to manage the crisis of overproduction because of the existence of the socialist system - it was scary. And there is nowhere to export capital. You can't get to a socialist camp! And India and China were not capital markets yet. The world situation, however, required the United States to move further scientific and technological progress. Otherwise, the West would have lost the war with the USSR. (There is reason to believe that he lost it in 73-74. But the USSR, alas, refused to force the victory. Let's not get distracted by this topic now. If interested, you can talk another time.)
The Carter administration and Fed Chairman Paul Volcker (Alan Greenspan's predecessor) came up with a clever concept. For the first time in the history of capitalism, they began not to help the capitalists alone, but to stimulate aggregate demand.
At whose expense was the banquet scheduled?
By issuing money.
Have you decided to start a printing press?
Quite right.
Now it finally dawned on me, Mikhail Leonidovich, why it was in those years that the Americans stopped providing the dollar with gold! All the reserves of yellow metal at Fort Knox would not have been enough for a banquet. On green banknotes.
Almost so. More precisely, there was not enough gold even earlier, the dollar was defaulted in 1971. But if the binding to gold was gone, then God himself ordered to use it.
Let's continue, however, our educational program. In the early 80s, the state's demand was mainly stimulated by the Star Wars program. Since 1983, the focus has been on households.
Translated into colloquial Russian - into an average consumer, an ordinary citizen?
Yes. For a quarter of a century, households were given money through emission. More and more.
Loans?
Naturally. Due to the excess demand, the States made the next round of scientific and technological progress. They destroyed the USSR. We have achieved many other good results.
But ... This take-off came at the expense of resources that were supposed to provide growth in the future. The country has devoured its resources two generations ahead. The states were accumulating debts. This is clearly seen if we compare the graphs of the growth of household debt and the total total US debt and US GDP. The economy grew at a rate of 2-3, a maximum of 4 percent per year. Sometimes it sank into minus. Debts are constantly growing at a rate of 8-10 percent.
And let them grow. The Americans have lived until now, they did not grieve ... Better than ours, by the way.
Indeed, by stimulating consumer demand, Americans have created a state with an extremely high standard of living. Generations of people have grown up who are not used to living in poverty. Since they had an additional source of resources - loans. But you can't live on loan forever. The volume of debt has become too large, household debts have exceeded the volume of the country's economy - more than $ 14 trillion. It's time to pay the bills. By the way, the GKO pyramid in Russia collapsed in the same way in 1998. The scale of the country's budget has become insufficient to pay off the GKO debts. It all ended with a default.
Of course, Wall Street tried feverishly to postpone its collapse. I will not go into detail about derivatives you do not like, other fictitious financial assets... Many are now writing about this in detail, blaming them for the crisis. But this was just an attempt to breathe before dying. Understand the main thing, Evgeny: fictitious means that there is no real final demand for them. They can be exchanged as much as you like between two financial institutions. But you won't be able to sell to a specific person. And the engine of the economy is the final demand. In the face of the average consumer or the state. This is a fundamental thing.
What to do? There are two options. The first is to stop issuing, that is, to turn off the printing press. And improve the economy. But in this case, all financial assets - trillions and trillions of dollars - will instantly depreciate. The entire financial system will collapse. This is a 1929 version of the Great American Depression. But already on a global scale. For the dollar is still the main world currency.
Option two is to create hyperinflation. To burn down the debts. The idea is great. Actually, this is what they are doing now. Roughly speaking, you owe someone 100 rubles, and inflation in the country is 100 percent. In a year your debt turns into 50 rubles at fixed prices, after two - in 25. And after a few years you can forget about this debt altogether.
Here is a concrete example from life. It was Gorbachev's decision to allocate 12 acres of land to the people and a loan from Sberbank to build a house. My friends, husband and wife, took two shares of land, loans, bought building materials. They built the house themselves. And in 1993 they calmly returned the loan to the bank. In nominal terms, it remained the same, but in fact at that time it was less than a monthly salary. But an hour's drive from Moscow they have good house, large plot.
America's problem, however, is that since 1981, capacities have been built up to the provoked growing demand. Produced both goods and services. And whichever option Wall Street chooses now, hyperinflation, or shutting down the printing press, demand will inevitably fall. What to do with these capacities?
In 2000, we calculated how much of the American economy should disappear. At that time - a quarter. Today - a third. If not more.
It's not just a lot, it's an incredible amount! What is the destruction of at least a quarter of the economy? This is a frantic rise in unemployment, a terrible depression, a sharp increase in the social burden on the budget and social tension in society. And so on. During the Great Depression, production in the United States fell by a third, and consumption - by 50 percent. Now consumption may be reduced even more.
That is why the United States is now jumping out of its pants, doing everything to prevent this part of the economy from disappearing. They stimulate banks, production ... And still, in 2-3 years, or even earlier, America will get a crisis of the scale of the Great Depression.
That is, now we see more flowers?
Of course, this is the very beginning. Of course, they cannot speak out loud about it. They will now pretend that everything is fine. And it will be even better. They will start looking for reasons why this happened. Look for the extreme. That is why there are fears of major terrorist attacks. Similar to what they organized in 2001.
Well, you give it, Mikhail Leonidovich!
In troubled times, it is necessary to change the psychology of society, to unite it. The best way- a threat. This is not the first time for the United States. In 1898, in order to start a war with Spain, as a result of which they took the Philippines and Cuba from her, the Americans blew up their own battleship Maine on the roadstead of Panama. In 1941 there was Pearl Harbor.
Did you bomb this base yourself?
The Japanese bombed. But the US leadership knew about the upcoming raid. However, it allowed an attack. It was urgently required to change the mood of society from isolationism (America is far away, the enemy will not reach!) To a policy of expansion. All the aircraft carriers had just been taken out of Pearl Harbor in advance. And the soldiers do not mind! The tragedy of Pearl Harbor really plowed America ...
In the early 60s - the famous incident in the Gulf of Tonkin. To get into Vietnam, the Americans blew up their own cruiser. This is the norm for them, this is how they are arranged.
On September 10, 2001, I warned on the forum site of the Expert magazine that soon the Americans would arrange major terrorist attacks against themselves and blame everything on Osama bin Laden. There are still links to this message on the Internet, although two years ago "Expert" reorganized its site and the message itself can no longer be found there.
Cool! The next day, the twin towers were blown up. Where does this foresight come from?
They had no time left. The US economic performance in August was very poor. I would have to explain myself. Remember, after the terrorist attack, they closed the exchange for several days. Distracted attention. And most importantly, under these terrorist attacks, they finally abandoned liberal methods of economic management and began a transition to pure dirigism. That is, to direct management of the economy by the state and the Federal Reserve System.
So the World Trade Center was targeted for a reason?
Well, that, of course, was a symbol.
But isn't everything too simple, Mikhail Leonidovich? August failed, in September staged a terrorist attack? Long-term preparation is required for a provocation on a global scale.
So she walked for a long time. A crisis was brewing. "Black August" only spurred the deadline. The crisis phenomena began in the 90s. As a matter of fact, a thorough study of economic processes, which we will not go into, since the reader will not be interested in this, shows that the "point of no return" was most likely passed on the border of the first and second Clinton terms.
Say a word for poor Bush!
But they say that Bush Jr. is to blame for everything. Not in the explosion, of course, but in the fact that he brought the richest country to the handle. Our fashionable economic analyst Yulia Latynina even called the outgoing US President Leonid Ilyich Bush.
Nonsense. Of course, Bush should be scolded, he did a lot of bad things. For example, in 8 years I have not understood what is happening. However, the crisis could break out back in the 80s. They miraculously survived in 87th. Then they jumped out due to the collapse of the USSR and the seizure of the markets that we controlled. Great happiness came to them. But in the late 90s it got stormy again. Even before Bush came.
If at the beginning of the 90s the United States directed the resources seized on the territory of the former socialist countries to pay off its debts made in the 80s, it would be possible to stretch the happiness for 30 years. But instead, they made new debts! That is, they accelerated the process. In this sense, I repeat once again, the real culprit of the current crisis, the last person who could avoid it, or rather, push it back, was Clinton. Bush has already come to a ready-made crisis. He was trying to do something. Changed the remaining monetary methods to direct management, tightened regulation, etc. But too late. The locomotive was rushing at full speed. So Clinton is to blame with his kleptomaniac administration in the person of Rubin, Summers and other figures.
Negro Obama will answer for everything!
The crisis began in America. Overseas. But why did the whole world tremble?
The dollar is not just the world's reserve and trading (now about 70% of international transactions in dollars) currency, but also after 1971 a single measure of value.
Consider one more important thing. The modern economic model, based on the dollar as the main world currency, has led to the fact that America plays a unique role in the global economy. It produces about 20 percent of world GDP. (The total is about 60 trillion dollars. The real share of the US is 12 trillion, that is, a fifth. Although the US itself writes that it is 14, this figure is not worth believing.) And consumes about 40 percent of world GDP. Almost twice as much. Parity purchasing power, of course. Because they buy cheap and sell at their prices dearly. As a result, they, like a vacuum cleaner, suck resources from all over the world.
The destruction of this system will lead to the fact that the standard of living in the United States will fall. At least two times. There have never been cases in history that a drop in living standards of this magnitude did not lead to the destruction of the socio-political system of the state. It is clear that the current political elite of the United States is doing everything in order not to lose power. What we see.
Personally, I do not see, to be honest. A normal pre-election campaign is underway.
Don't you think the appearance of such a strange character for the entire previous history of the United States, like Obama, seems suspicious to you? It’s not even strange that he’s a black man. Negro, well, thank God ...
African American, you want to say, Mikhail Leonidovich?
No, sorry! Afro is purely American, politically correct. And in Russian - a Negro. In Russian, the word "negro" is not emotionally colored and is not a curse. I have explained this many times. Including on the streets of Washington. For he spoke Russian. And now I am giving an interview to a Russian newspaper.
Obama's weirdness is that he is not at all rooted in the American establishment. He has a strange mother, a strange father ... Obama, in a sense, is a character made. Someone pulled it out and moves it.
If i knew! Although it would be very interesting to find out. Obama's rival McCain is also a specific character, although he represents the upper American establishment in the fourth generation. McCain is many years old, in the first place. Secondly, he is severely broken mentally. Captivity in Vietnam is not in vain. Fierce hatred could not help but remain in him. And in politics, fierce hatred, emotions get in the way. A politician should be cold and cynical.
What are you driving at, Mikhail Leonidovich?
The American elite is well aware that the next administration will most likely not wait until the end of the term. After all, she will have to make very tough, unpopular decisions in the economy. It is pointless to put a sensible president from your circle in the White House. It is a pity for the person, besides, he still cannot really do anything. We need a character who is not a pity, so that later everything can be blamed on him.
What about democratic elections?
Democracy is a mechanism for selling any major decision to the people. The elite will have to sell extremely unpopular solutions in a crisis. The only way is to get the charismatic out. In America, the president, for your information, is not chosen by the people. The charismatic Obama will do some terrible things the elite needs. Then it will be swept away by the indignant masses. And the politicians will blame everything on him. In short, this is a political suicide bomber who must close the embrasure.
Or the scapegoat.
You can say so.
Does Obama himself understand his role?
These are his personal problems. We would have to loosen up with ours in the near future.
But predictions of political scientists about the "October surprise" from the same bin Laden at the final stage of the race, which, they say, will change the balance of power and help the Republicans stay in power, are circulating. This fits into your concept of provocation.
If the gap between Obama and McCain were small, Republicans could take drastic steps like ...
- ... wars in Iran?
No, Iran is definitely canceled. And, relatively speaking, the explosion of a nuclear power plant a la Chernobyl in France. But it is already quite clear that Obama will win and explosions will not change anything.
Now the curiosity with McCain's headquarters is understandable, asking for money for the elections from the Russian embassy. Conscious setup. McCain is simply dumped. The Republicans seem to be closing the shop, leaving the game. It was not by chance that the former Bush Cabinet Secretary of State, the most authoritative Colin Powell, stuck a knife in the back of the Republicans, announcing the other day that he would vote for Obama. And he called him an important transitional figure.
So I have been talking about that for a long time - a transitional figure. One thing is good - there will be no provocations before the elections.
And what will happen after, Mikhail Leonidovich? How will the global crisis develop?
The acute stage of the global crisis, I repeat, has already begun. If the US stops issuing, stops printing dollars altogether, everything will collapse within 2-3 months. We get the 1929 version. They will print money, but at a minimum - the fall will take 2.5-3 years. Arrange hyperinflation, turn on the machine at full capacity - everything will be completed in a year and a half.
In your opinion, which of the three options will the United States choose? Or have you already chosen?
The third is hyperinflation. But after the November 4 elections (more precisely, after the presidential change), policy changes are possible.
However, whichever option they choose, as a result, the US economy will decrease by at least a third. The world will fall by 20 percent. After that, the planet will face 10-12 years of severe depression. In the USA and Europe, I think many will live from hand to mouth. And the car will become a luxury item.
A gloomy picture ...
The ghost returned to Russia. The specter of socialism
In Russia, she could have been more optimistic, I will not hide. We have cheap raw materials, our own oil, gas, etc. But, unfortunately, the idiotic policy of our financial authorities, which did not allow domestic enterprises to receive cheap loans, led to the fact that our production largely died. In 1998, we were able to quickly jump out of default due to what? The capacities that were mothballed since the times of the USSR were put into operation. Plus, the foreign economic situation has sharply improved. Oil prices skyrocketed. Now there will be no external economic conjuncture - a crisis. And there is no family capacity. It is impossible to build them. The demand will be small. And they will try to fill us up with cheap imported goods... We will have to close the border and completely worsen the structure of consumption. Or get money somewhere. Import - it costs money, but citizens will not have it. In Moscow alone, unemployment will be 2.5-3 million. Some of them are low-paid workers, primarily guest workers. This will increase crime and cause a host of other troubles. Imagine a million, well, even half a million Tajiks, Uzbeks who do not have permanent housing, who have lost a permanent source of income. They will run around the capital and grab everything that is bad. Specific tough measures will be required. At least for deportation. But we know that our authorities are not capable of doing this. Gangs will be formed from the most frostbitten ones. They will purposefully rob and pay off any militia for bribes. Plus two million unemployed so-called "office plankton". This is generally a difficult case. Young people who are used to receiving thousands of dollars just for the fact of their existence. And now they will be driven out. Everyone has mortgage debts, car loans, and other goods. How will they repay debts? The banks will have problems. To take away apartments for debts? Yes, they will smash all of Moscow! And the layoffs have already begun.
Well, don't scare me like that, Mikhail Leonidovich! The country's leadership is taking serious measures to minimize the consequences of the global crisis. Allocates billions. We hear about this on TV every day.
If all the money arrives as intended, we will hold out until spring. And there you can plant potatoes. But if everything is stolen, as it is customary for us, alas, the problems will begin in winter. And serious. As for the authorities ... Apparently, in recent weeks there has been a radical change in the psychology of the country's leaders. For many years they were under the illusion that there was enough money for everything. Petrodollars alone are worth something! And suddenly it turned out that not only was there not enough money - it was incredibly small! And it’s not even clear how to plug the holes that are already there. Everyone goes to power with an outstretched hand. Pay attention to the official messages. Retailers - large retail chains - are asking for $ 50 billion. Otherwise they will not survive. Oilmen also want 50 billion. Banks 50 billion before the new year. And there we need more. Agriculture already asks for 100 billion. Otherwise, they say, we will not sow. The auto industry, however, asks for a mere trifle - a billion. But he also asks. Citizens, they say, do not buy our cars due to lack of money, warehouses are overflowing, the conveyor cannot be stopped, people will not understand ... And the oligarchs are in a panic. And the worst thing is that their accounts in the West are also beginning to disappear. The oligarchs have already realized that only the state can protect them. And billions also groan.
I was told recently how a group of oligarchs came to the government to ask for money on the security of their enterprises. Those enterprises that they themselves took away from the state in the dashing 90s for a song loans-for-shares auctions... Wonderful are your works, O Lord!
Everything is clear with the oligarchs. I am not sure that the overwhelming majority of them will remain in 3-4 years.
Will they put you in?
Go broke.
True, some of our analysts see the coming nationalization of the same enterprises and banks in government assistance. The specter of socialism appears.
He dreams of being baptized! Socialism is primarily not nationalization, but a socialist method of government national economy... In our country, they are trying to nationalize under capitalist methods of management. Nothing, except total theft, will come of it.
Since you, as I can see, are a supporter of conspiracy theories, comment on the hints of TV star Vladimir Solovyov, as if the current crisis was specially organized to teach a lesson to Russia that has risen from its knees. That is why they lowered oil prices, as in 1989.
I am a principled opponent of conspiracy theories. I just understand a little how everything is arranged with us. As for Solovyov, this is just nonsense. If only because the reasons for the current crisis were discussed many years ago. Only the authorities ignored these discussions.
Iceland is a big "MMM"
Explain the incident with Iceland. Until recently, it was considered one of the richest countries in the world, convenient for living. And suddenly she went around the world with outstretched hand. Here, they say, how bad it turned out. The hard-working country of geysers has become the first victim of the global crisis. But I found an interesting post. It turns out that the German Schiller Institute, which closely monitors the spread of the crisis around the world, recorded a very important, or rather, alarming indicator in the summer - "the Icelandic laundering machine has closed the shop."
Since the world financial system is being destroyed, its fundamental mechanisms gradually cease to function. First, the US investment banking system. The rating system (i.e. assessment) of financial risks does not work. The insurance system is on the verge of collapse. It was the turn of offshore companies, that is, capital laundering systems. Iceland is not a country with a conventional economy. And just a bank with the name of the country. The volume of bank assets here was 10 times higher than GDP. Sorry, this was not a simple bank. Remember, in the 90s, some of our banks promised 20-30 percent per annum. Where are they now? Iceland had the world's highest discount rate. 15 percent. Pure pyramid. Everybody carried money there. Sooner or later, financial pyramids collapse. Consider Iceland as “MMM”.
Iceland - the first swallow in the system of world offshore companies, so beloved by Russian nouveau riches? Or will everything be limited to it?
I think that all offshore companies will have problems.
Then why is Russia going to help the collapsed Icelandic pyramid with a loan of $ 4 billion? Don't chickens peck at the money itself? For prestige, they say, are we on our feet? Wipe the West's nose? Or in the hope that Iceland will give us the former NATO military base and vote against Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO?
Can I answer off-print?
For print only, Mikhail Leonidovich.
Let's put it this way. There is a suspicion that we are helping for a reason. Some of our big people decided to make money there, to play a repo operation. And he did not take into account that the crisis had begun. Now we need to help him out. In order not to lose a blocking stake in a large Russian state-owned company. Do not ask for names or attendance, draw your own conclusions too. And even if this version does not correspond to reality, the very fact of its appearance and widespread dissemination speaks for itself.
China is like Chapay. Doesn't know languages
Soros recently announced that China will emerge victorious from the global financial crisis.
I would not say so. And that's why. The West, like the USSR, in the past is the bearer of a global project. There is a concept of managing the world economy.
World domination, in short?
Yes. China has no such concept. This is a purely national project. For this reason, the Chinese are actually shirking attempts to take responsibility for the situation in the world into their own hands. Exactly because they do not have a model for managing the world. Philosophical model. They can rule China, increase its power and sphere of influence. And that's all. This is the difference between the psychology of the Chinese and the Russians, representatives of the West. This is a fundamental thing. Remember, Petka asked Vasily Ivanovich if he would be able to command on a global scale?
No, Petka, I don’t know any languages.
So China, figuratively speaking, does not know languages. He can command a regiment, a division, an army ... Nothing more.
And at the end, let me ask you a personal question. What measures do you yourself take to, in official language, minimize the consequences of the crisis you predicted?
I have no such problems. My salary is only growing because I am a recognized crisis expert. And I do not have large capitals that need to be saved, and never have. To the readers of Komsomolskaya Pravda I can give only one general advice: be aware that bad times are long overdue. And live on from this understanding.
Evgeny Chernykh:
P. S. I understand that to many readers Khazin's thoughts will seem pure fantasy, conspiracy theories, and even delirium. I so want not to believe him. Especially about bad times, which are serious and for a long time. I, I confess, too. But ... I specifically held his book about the financial collapse of America in my hands 5 years ago. Now that fantasy is really coming true. And about the American provocation on September 11, 2001, books have been written and films made in the West. However, after the explosions. And the explanations are primitive - a terrorist attack was required to capture Iraq.
During our two-hour conversation, I noted the main thing. Despite gloomy predictions about long bad times, Khazin himself is an optimist. He smiles a lot, jokes. Let us be optimists too! This helps to survive at all times. And forewarned is forearmed.
Those who wish to learn more about Khazin's opinions and forecasts about the situation - welcome to his website
Mikhail Khazin, president of Neokon (for expert consulting), predicted the global economic crisis several years before it occurred. According to Khazin, we all live in a transition from one economic model to another. Moreover, this transition applies to the whole world.
According to Mikhail Khazin, the leaders in this economic situation are those who play without observing the rules of the game. As an example, the economist cites Russia's actions in relation to the Crimea. Khazin also claims that the events that are taking place in Ukraine today are the result of global political processes.
Mikhail Khazin notes that today one can observe the destruction of the economic system, which was formed first in the West, and then since 1991 has spread throughout the world. This system, assuming the economic dominance of the United States, paid great attention to the main currency - the dollar. So, redistributing finances around the world, the United States supported the world order, providing some states with more funds, and some with less.
In addition, it was America that supported certain sections of the elite and political regimes. However, when the crisis hit (2008), an acute shortage of finance began to be felt. The standard of living began to deteriorate rapidly, which caused the outrage of American vassals. Some of them even wanted to stage a revolution against America's policies. Of course, the US authorities felt the need to change the current system. However, America could no longer change it on its own. In view of this, the goal was set to weaken the main world currency. Mikhail Khazin emphasizes that such a depreciation presupposed a sharp increase in the exchange rate when the crisis engulfed the world economy. It was about three currencies:
- American dollar;
- Euro;
- CNY.
Khazin argues that Ukraine was held hostage by the United States due to strategic interests, as it is located between the two main competitors of the dollar.
Mikhail very simply explains why the established economic order in the world is being destroyed, and many countries are going through a crisis. Any economic system, he said, is guided by the same principle: the production of a product involves its sale. At the same time, the more complex the system is, the more difficult it is to sell, and many manufacturers face the risk of creating any product.
To reduce the level of risk, you need to increase demand. America has been using this mechanism since the 1980s, imposing this principle on other states. To support the activities of the manufacturer, loans began to be issued to consumers. This, in turn, led to the fact that residents' incomes were less than their expenses by twenty or twenty-five percent on average.
Khazin notes that for the first time such a system failed in 2008, when the crisis occurred due to the further impossibility of increasing the number of consumers (at some point it became physically impossible). But, as Mikhail Khazin says, the crisis of seven years ago blew away the financial bubble by only a small part. In the near future, the world is expecting a crisis of a much larger scale, since today the American stock market is almost completely cut off from the real indicators of the level of the companies' economies. Height stock market takes place against the background of an economy that is no longer developing further.
Khazin notes that the crisis of our time is forcing European countries to look for new ways to stabilize the economic situation. Moreover, all participants trading market strive to enter assets that are maximally protected from the impact of the global economic crisis. The degree of protection always depends on the level of liquidity.
Thus, the most liquid category is the dollar. Because of this, during times of economic instability and stagnation, the dollar rises sharply. Some people manage to profit financially from this. With a liquid asset such as gold or real estate, it turns out to be very expensive during a crisis. However, it is almost impossible to sell such an asset.
World crisis in Russia
As for the assessment of the crisis in the Russian economy in 2015, Mikhail Khazin says that the crisis in the Russian Federation will continue if the country continues to pursue a policy similar to the one the government is pursuing now. In addition, the crisis will develop and grow due to the devaluation of the Russian national currency... Yes, a similar situation with the ruble ensured the subsequent economic growth in the country in 2008, but today the situation is completely different.
Devaluation today cannot give positive results, since there is no investment resource. Khazin says that the situation in the country can change if the economic policy of the state is changed. The Russian Federation has a potential for economic growth of five to eight percent for ten or fifteen years.
Situation in Europe
As to how the change in the exchange rate will affect the countries of Europe, Mikhail gives a double answer. According to him, the fact that the Baltic countries entered the euro area is a mistake. At the same time, the devaluation of the national currency in the country does not always have Negative consequences... For example, during the crisis seven years ago in Poland, the devaluation of the zloty took place, but at the same time the state was able to survive the crisis without falling GDP.
Incidentally, this is the only country in the European Union that was able to prevent the fall. At the same time, the Baltic countries could survive at any time thanks to the help of the European Union. The amount of this aid has decreased significantly today, so Khazin sees the future of Tallinn, Daugavpils, Klaipeda rather gloomy. In addition, the Russophobia of the local authorities led to the fact that the Russian Federation began to close the transit routes, which previously also helped the Baltic countries to survive.
In general, regarding the fate of the European Union, Mikhail suggests two ways of development. Since the European Union includes Western and Eastern Europe, and the Eastern one was admitted to the union due to the surplus of monetary resources of the 90s, there are two options for action. The first option is that the Western European states should worsen their standard of living, sacrificing their own economic situation in order to save the countries of Eastern Europe. The second way the global crisis can be overcome is to maintain Western Europe its population at the expense of the population of the countries of Eastern Europe. Since the answer is obvious, economic situation in Eastern European countries will deteriorate much more rapidly than in Western European countries.
