So I got to the book “O. Grigoriev: The Age of Growth. Lectures on neo-economics. The rise and fall of the world economic system". What's interesting about it? This is the basis on which the ideas of various figures of the Neocon, incl. and the notorious Mikhail Khazin. For me, the basis is more important than the subsequent settings above it - no matter how beautiful and logical they seem. Here, a comparison with the design of a conventional building is quite appropriate. It doesn't matter that the building is beautiful - it is important that it stands on a solid foundation. In general, any theory where there is no clearly prescribed basis and appeal to the final axioms, I classify as conspiratorial. This does not mean that I immediately sweep them aside and ignore. Rather, it refers to a critical look at them (in the event that they attract me) until an idea of the basis is formed that will either confirm or refute this theory. It should be noted here that the basis and its axioms may also be wrong, but at least their justification is easier to check.
That is why I liked a number of Mikhail Khazin's theory, but I looked at them quite critically. The book "The Age of Growth" forms the basis of neo-economics, describing, on the one hand, simply, on the other, in sufficient detail - where do these or those neo-economic statements come from. For this, we used a comparison of the representation of classical economic views from Adam Smith to Marxists and modern figures of modern economic thought with a real state of affairs. By and large, those contradictions were revealed in economic theory, which were accumulated from the classics, after which an attempt was made to substantiate them from a new point of view. In this regard, the work, on the one hand, is based on already existing knowledge, on the other hand, it is creatively revised.
Neo-economics is based on the consideration of the principle of the division of labor. However, those who are closely following Khazin already know this. And one of the tasks of this work was to describe how the division of labor originated, how it occurs and why it has such a serious impact on the economic life of the entire planet. However, the economy is alive not only by the division of labor - other equally important economic moments were revealed and described: for example, the appearance of money. In addition, it was shown how the economy interacted with social practices and vice versa.
There are a lot of conclusions about the book. It makes no sense to list all of them, since it is the main PR manager of the neocon Khazin, but I will list some of them.
It is clearly shown that modern economy is a conglomerate of vertically hierarchical objects (firms), where the division of labor and, in fact, the world market is deepening, which, however, does not matter the Absolute, but is regulated within wide limits: from the requirement of free trade to strict regulation economic life(including in capitalist countries).
The West, in the modern sense of the word, has long been an impoverished and seedy province of the world economy, which was oriented towards the Big East. The Renaissance of the West was the result not so much of its miraculous features (which, however, also took place), as a favorable combination of several circumstances. This is also true for other cases of rapid economic growth: it is not enough to be a conditionally good guy - it is important to be in the right time and place.
The last statement is so well shown from the point of view of historical retrospective that it creates a feeling of some pessimism that everything is predetermined, and it is impossible to jump over your head. By and large, this means that in the current world configuration - world economy doomed to fade. The most that neo-economics can do is to make this decay smoother. However, Oleg Grigoriev himself says that he is a pure economist, therefore he does not see the whole picture as a whole, therefore he cannot issue recipes for saving the world. Moreover, he hopes that there will be people with this wide range, where one of the economic building blocks in their basis will be this book on neo-economics. Which, in general, is true.
What are you neighing at? No matter how ridiculous it may be to say, the demands of our market heralds that everything should be done by a private trader gave a natural result. A new look at the economy was born in the depths of a private company. In general, private traders Khazin and Pereslegin are moving the science of the future forward. Funny and sad at the same time.
What attracted attention. The Fed's monetary policy in the recent crisis is very different from the recommendations given by modern economic thought. The suspicion arises that they understand something, but do not tell anyone.
Well, and finally, about historical optimism and a global view of the division of labor. I already said a little earlier that, in general, this work looks into the future without optimism, since it has been historically confirmed that the main progress in the past was provided by a favorable combination of circumstances that have ended at the moment (due to the finiteness of the world market, limited by the framework of the planet Earth) ... The authors of the book do not look deeper, because this is a slightly different topic. Nevertheless, the impossible happened in the historical retrospective - the USSR created its own technological zone. Not to say that in this case it arose in spite of everything - some window of opportunity, of course, was present, but, on the whole, the breakthrough of the USSR contradicts the general concept of neo-economics about economic growth in a single country. In the USSR, according to this work, a miracle happened. Due to both a favorable coincidence of circumstances, and due to the use of the original at that time economic methods(planned economy), and due to the enormous will to victory, which, on the one hand, caused the passionarity of the masses, on the other hand, harshly and even brutally suppressed the resistance of the dissatisfied. In general, miracles do not happen out of the blue - they must be prepared and be ready to pay for the costs. This explains the fact why Industrialization and Collectivization in the USSR went through so hard. From the point of view of the economic situation, it is impossible to do this in the usual way, so a competent afterburner was required, which, alas, was not devoid of drawbacks.
It seems that the reformatting of the future economy will also combine elements of the former Soviet breakthrough: a combination of favorable factors (the current economic crisis), the use of original economic and social solutions (remember that the same USSR was primarily a social experiment), and the great exertion of forces and means. In this regard, neo-economics sets a rigid corridor of opportunities that must be met, having the available forces and funds. In my opinion, one of the sides of the triangle of a strategic leap into the future has been created. Its technological side is being developed by Pereslegin with its technological packages, and the social side will be implemented based on the resulting narrow corridor of opportunities. In general, in the bright future we will go on kicks and over corpses, but, I hope, with a relatively reliable compass.
As for, in fact, the division of labor. The closest and simplest example for a person is the family. Try to raise a large number of children in a singular family. This is simply not possible. And in a complete family it is quite realizable (if there are sufficient funds). Modern world, which appeals to the full equality of the sexes, including by means of economic and legal pressure, leads to the fact that this division of labor is destroyed. Accordingly, a woman is not interested in children for economic reasons, and a man gets it all the more. In this regard, the collapse of the institution of the family is more than obvious. As well as a decrease in the reproduction of the population, because numerous children (more than one) require a normal family with a classical division of labor (a man provides, a woman is engaged in the household and children). In general, the issue of demographic reproduction and the structure of society is also tied to the division of labor in society and the family.
If we take a nation, then here we have the same division of labor, which allows society to reproduce within a certain framework. Moreover, the social structure is determined not only by economic parameters, but also by cultural ones. That is why such essential is devoted to the prosperity of the people / nation. It is in such cultural communities that the next major level of the division of labor is realized, which determines it. social structure... With the destruction of a nation, its division of labor (both social and economic) will be destroyed, which will imply either its integration into a new division of labor at the level of the globalized world, or banal destruction. Therefore, the issue of nationalism is not so much the reaction of a number of extravagant radicals as the pressing need of society for self-preservation. This is especially true if it enters the globalized world in secondary roles, which implies its complete performance, both with the loss of its identity and with the loss of economic independence. In short, this nation will have a tail and a mane, with complete dependence on external control. However, if you believe in the world of pink ponies that poop with ambrosia, then you should not worry.
In general, from the point of view of ordering the modern picture of the world, the book is very worthy. Answering a number of pressing questions and posing the following to the thinking audience.
By button above "Buy a paper book" you can buy this book with delivery throughout Russia and similar books on the most best price v paper form on the websites of the official online stores Labyrinth, Ozone, Bukvoed, Chitay-gorod, Liters, My-shop, Book24, Books.ru.
By clicking the "Buy and download e-book" button, you can buy this book in in electronic format in the official online store "Liters", and then download it on the Liters website.
By clicking the "Find similar materials on other sites" button, you can search for similar materials on other sites.
On the buttons above you can buy the book in official online stores Labirint, Ozon and others. Also you can search related and similar materials on other sites.
Why are some countries rich while others remain poor despite their best efforts? What factors determine economic growth? Answering these questions, the author comes to an unexpected conclusion: the wave of economic growth of the past two-plus centuries is based on a unique combination of circumstances in the world economic system of the 18th century. However, the initial impetus for growth has long since been exhausted.
Are we in a position to take control of economic development, or will we have to accept a slow decline that threatens to turn into disaster at any moment? There is no answer to this question today, however, the understanding of real mechanisms presented in the book economic development can serve as a basis for making the necessary decisions.
Oleg Grigoriev relies on the original concept of the decisive role of the division of labor.
The book will be interesting for specialists, as well as for a wide range of readers interested in economics.
Oleg Grigoriev graduated from the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University, was a researcher at the Central Economics and Mathematics Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. He worked in the Supreme Council, the State Duma, in the Economic Department of the President of the Russian Federation. State Counselor First Class. Since 2012 - the founder and scientific director of the Research Center of Oleg Grigoriev "Neo-Economics".
Our scheme of monocultural interaction between two countries is similar to the theory of comparative
advantages of D. Ricardo, but in reality there are fundamental differences between them.
If we compare our model and the well-known model of D. Ricardo from a purely mathematical (rather arithmetic) point of view, then the impression will be created that we are talking about the same model. However, both we and Ricardo have economic models, but from an economic point of view, the differences are very significant.
From an economic point of view, it is not the numbers that are important, but an accurate description of the situation to which they relate. We and Ricardo consider different situations - respectively, the line of reasoning and our conclusions are different.
The most important difference is as follows. We consider the interaction of two countries on the assumption that they differ in the level of technological division of labor. As for Ricardo, his reasoning is based on a natural division of labor based on natural or acquired advantages. At the same time, some of Ricardo's comments give reason to assume that he knows about the technological division of labor, however, even in these cases, doubts remain: is it really a technological division of labor, or a natural one based on acquired advantages.
CONTENT
Words of gratitude
LECTURE 1 On the division of labor
LECTURE 2: Interaction between developed and developing countries. Monocultural interaction
LECTURE 3: Interaction between developed and developing countries. Investment interaction
LECTURE 4: The Reproductive Circuit
LECTURE 5: Interaction of Reproduction Circuits: Money
LECTURE 6: Interaction of Reproductive Circuits: Rent
LECTURE 7: Technological division of labor. Firm
LECTURE 8: Scientific and technological progress
LECTURE 9: Formation of a modern economic system
LECTURE 10: Economic Crises
Conclusion Literature
- Social studies, module 3, economics, Zorabyan S.E., Gromakova V.G., Savchenkova I.N., 2019
- The history of Bolivia from ancient times to the beginning of the XXI century, Larin E.A., Shchelchkov A.A., 2015
The following tutorials and books.
Why are some countries rich while others remain poor despite their best efforts? What factors determine economic growth?
The economic growth that has been observed over the past 250 years has exhausted its momentum. What's next for us?
Oleg Grigoriev understands the reasons that led then, a long time ago, to a surge, caused the growth of factories and plants, productivity and efficiency, the flow of money and general well-being. But can the same reasons ensure the growth of the economy in the coming years?
From the editors of the site
Neo-economics is the best vaccine against conspiracy theories that have become especially popular in recent times... Not "Rothschilds and Rockefellers" determine the course of world processes, but quite objective laws. which Grigoriev will reveal and carefully consider in his book.
Without much exaggeration, we can say that the "Age of Growth" is the "Capital" of our time (so far only the first volume ...)
You can read about what Neo-Economics is and why this book should be read
Only on our website you can legally purchase this book in electronic form. And thus express in material form gratitude to the staff of SIC Nekonomika.
Available in PDF, FB2 and EPUB formats.
Price - 299 rublesAfter purchase, you need to return back to the same page, where download links will be available to you.
Moreover, when downloaded, the files include encrypted information about who exactly the copy was shipped to. So it is not recommended to distribute files on the network either ...
Since the emergence of Homo sapiens on this sinful planet, this man lived in one economic reality. And this reality was called - Increasing the division of labor. Which led to the emergence of more and more new professions. A constant and continuous increase in the division of labor, the emergence of new professions, accompanied a person throughout his history. It seemed that it would be like this forever. At least until all of humanity is involved in the global division of labor. But then a semiconductor transistor appeared and this (fortunately) came to an end.
The mistake lies in the fact that, according to Oleg Grigoriev's Neo-Economics, this process of deepening the division of labor has reached its limit. It embraced all of humanity and there is nowhere to expand further. No more people on the planet that are not involved in the global division of labor. However, it is not. Moreover, from about 1990 the opposite process began. Since the end of the last century, humanity has entered a new economic reality. And this new reality is called - Reducing the division of labor.
We are talking exclusively about the labor involved in Material production. Everything that can be weighed can be attributed to Material production. In the literal sense of the word. The Product of Material Labor has a weight that can be measured in kilograms. Anything that cannot be weighed belongs to the Service Industry. The work of a hairdresser, designer, actor, psychologist, doctor, teacher, etc. It is impossible to weigh. And all this work belongs to the Service Industry. Material production includes agriculture, the extraction of raw materials and industrial production, everything that can be weighed, everything that has Weight. This is the most important point required to separate the Service Industry and Material Production. It will go further, only and exclusively about Material production.
Although it is here that an interesting dispute arises about which type of production should be attributed to software, which is becoming more and more important in the total volume of the Gross Domestic Product. The work of a programmer is Material production or the Service Sphere. The controversy inevitably comes down to the level of Quantum Mechanics and Theory of Relativity. The software, at the time of its transfer from one place to another, still has this weight. But precisely at the time of transfer, not storage. The photons and electrons participating in the transfer of the software have this weight. In any case, the same Photons have energy and this energy can be converted into kilograms, not to mention electrons. But at the time of its storage, this software has no weight. A hard magnetic disk or a laser disk has the same weight, regardless of whether the program is recorded on them or not. A person who buys such a software disc in a store is actually buying only the weight of the medium itself. The purchased program in the place of its storage after downloading from the network also has no weight. The program itself, placed on the carrier, cannot be weighed in kilograms in any way. And if at the time of purchase of goods or storage of goods, this product (program) has no weight, then it belongs to the Service Sphere. In general, all the work of a programmer can be fully attributed to the economy of the Service Industry.
The increase in the division of labor in material production has gone through three stages. The first stage is level. Division of labor based on natural benefits. We have grapes and olives, you have sheep and goats. Let's trade wine and olives for wool, butter and cheese. The second level of the division of labor is based on industrial and raw material exchange. We give you industrial products (iPhones and gadgets), you give us raw materials and food (oil, gas, hemp and grain). The third level is based on Outsourcing. We collect and develop final product, the product itself, you supply us with components and parts for it.
According to the development logic of the Increase in the division of labor, the entire post-Soviet space should be included in the global division of labor at a higher level of the third stage or third phase of its development, at the Outsourcing level. For example, China and Latin American countries are included. However, the entire post-Soviet space is stuck at the second level of development. Raw materials and food in exchange for manufactured goods. And it's not just about bad colonial governance, bad Putin or Yanukovych. With a good Poroshenko, the second level of the division of labor is even more entrenched. It's all about a global process that began around 1990 of the last century. Humanity has entered a new economic reality - Reducing the level of division of labor. To understand why the reverse process began and what does the transistor have to do with it, you need to start from afar and trace all the stages of development of the Increase in the division of labor.
At the very beginning of history, there was only one natural economy... Then began a gradual process of exchange - trade, based on natural benefits. At this stage, settled settlements began to appear. Then the second stage of development began, raw materials and food in exchange for industrial (handicraft) products. At this stage, cities and towns of artisans began to appear. The third stage, Outsourcing, removal of the production of parts and components to places with more low level income. At this stage, Trans national or Trans city companies began to appear. Settlements and cities at the top of technological chains began to stand out.
In the beginning there was a stick. And besides the stick, the man did not produce anything. Then, there was an increase in the variety of sticks - products. A stick for churning fruit on a tree, a stick for dripping roots, a stick for hitting the head. The process of increasing the number of products produced by man began. Man gradually learned to make clothes, shoes, dishes from ceramics. Build housing - a hut. The variety of products made by man has been constantly increasing. As the variety of products increased, an equally interesting process began in their production. In some products, an increase in the number of parts of which these products consisted began. And this is the second important point in production.
An increase in the variety of products leads to the emergence of new professions and as a consequence; Increases the level of division of labor. An increase in the number of parts in one product leads to the emergence of new professions that manufacture different parts for the product and as a result; Increases the level of division of labor. The sailing ships in 1492, in which Columbus and company crossed the Ocean, contained no less than a thousand separate parts knocked together and assembled into one piece called the Karakka. The three karakki, Pinta, Ninha and Santa Maria, as a result of this action, went down in history as the ships of Columbus. Subsequently, every hundred years there was a doubling of the number of parts in one product, referred to as a sailing ship. Galleons of the early 17th century, contained two to two and a half thousand parts. Three-mast Galleons of the 18th century, with several rows of sails on one mast, could contain up to four to five thousand parts.
It is difficult to simulate when the increase in the number of parts in ships began, but you can definitely tell where it all started. It all started with two parts. A dugout boat, one piece and an oar from a solid piece of wood, the second piece. It is easy to see that with an increase in the number of parts in ships, it became possible to move the production of individual parts to places where income - wages were lower. Not so much the urgent need to move part of the production to another city, as an opportunity to reduce the cost and increase production - the assembly of ships. Including an increasing number of people in the division of labor in the production of one, final product. A city or a village with a shipyard, with such a division of labor, was at the top of the technological chain, controlling the development and final assembly of the product, getting the maximum profit, and the owners of the shipyard ended up at the head of the Trans city company with suppliers of manufacturers in other cities - villages.
The first Ford cars contained 1.5 thousand parts. Now, the simplest car of the same company contains about 20-30 thousand parts and hundreds of suppliers of these parts, often in other countries. Boeing 747 contains over half a million parts. The Boeing 787 contains nearly a million parts and thousands of suppliers worldwide. It seems that the number of various products and the number of parts in the product is steadily growing, and with it the increase in the division of labor with the transition to the third level, Outsourcing. However, it is not.
The increase in the number of products and parts in them is gradually increasing, but already much more slowly than before and, most likely, very soon will reach its limit, after which the reverse process will begin. But the number of parts in electronics products has already begun to decline. The first VCRs contained more detail than DVD players. The laser disc itself is one detail. The cassette for the tape recorder contained up to forty parts. Now the players themselves are disappearing. Even in TVs, there is a decrease in the number of parts and every TV in the near future will be both a computer and a game console, consisting of two parts. Wire with plug and monocrystalline computer on transistors. These very transistors, in front of one generation, practically destroyed the whole film industry. Cinema and Photo tape, magnetic tape for tape recorders and all equipment using them. It is hard to imagine how many people were involved in these industries and what was the scale of outsourcing, the removal of production of parts and components by multinational companies. And the first computers occupying entire floors of buildings on vacuum tubes and punched cards. And the vacuum tubes themselves. But that's not all.
The computers themselves with the software fired entire institutes of the factory engaged in drawing drawings by hand on paper. The computer connected to the machine tool and became a numerical control machine, which dramatically increased labor productivity, sent an entire army of machine operators into oblivion. Peter Martin and Harald Schumann, wrote the book - The Trap of Globalization. Where they described the threat to the world order, from the transition to society 20 = 80%. Where only twenty percent of the population will be employed in material production. And in agriculture, and in the extraction of raw materials and in industrial production, due to the increase in labor productivity associated with the massive introduction of computers in all spheres of production. Already now in countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, which still have to develop and develop to the level developed countries have percentage close to 20-80%. Already now in these countries 60% of the population is employed in the Service Sector, not to mention the developed countries, and this percentage is steadily growing. It is the reduction in the population employed in material production that is a consequence of the process that has begun - the reduction in the division of labor.
With this trend, the number of countries where the high-tech industry will be preserved will also decrease. The world of Elysium and the rest of the Cyberpunk world, where there will be endless Hunger Games, which have already begun in the Middle East and the former Ukraine, this is the bright future of mankind. This is due to the fact that as labor productivity grows and the population of those employed in industrial production decreases, there is a great desire to move this production to your home, in developed world, leaving only the extraction of raw materials and agriculture with the neighbors. This process began at the end of the last century and will inevitably reach its logical end. The shocks and social cataclysms that will accompany all this action will not at all yield to the shocks that humanity experienced when the previous economic formations were replaced.
Previous wars were caused by the desire of individual countries to climb to the top of technological chains. Today's wars will be driven by the desire to stay on these heights. The dispute between the United States and Europe over who will remain has already begun.
And before that, central Europe, without any war, destroyed the technological industry from its eastern competitors - neighbors. After 1990, the high-tech industry disappeared in the countries of the former socialist camp, Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, the USSR. It is believed that jobs moved from here to China. But this is not true, by and large they have not moved anywhere. It's just that labor productivity has increased in central Europe and enterprises in the east working for European outsourcing, supplying parts and components to the final assembly sites, are no longer needed, just as direct competitors are no longer needed. The total number of people who have lost their jobs in the tech industries of these countries far exceeds the number of people employed in China's export areas. In China itself, in the rest of the world, only 20-40 million people work.
It is in pseudo liberal myths that all of China works for the rest of the world for a cup of rice. Half of China's population is engaged in agriculture and does not export rice or wheat. The Service Sector employs 30% of the population. The production itself employs the remaining thirty percent or two hundred million people. Of these, only ten, twenty percent work in the export areas of production. The grown uncles who govern the Western world themselves did not understand what they did to China, pumping it with technologies in pursuit of cheapness. In order to employ forty million Chinese for low salary, they essentially raised a tech monster and rival on their western head, for a place in Elysium. To destroy industry in the post-Soviet space, not allowing it to become an analogue of Latin America, technologically dependent on developed countries, for the sake of exploiting forty million Chinese, but in fact for the sake of the Chinese, you need to be able to do this.
Why are some countries rich while others remain poor despite their best efforts? What factors determine economic growth? Answering these questions, the author comes to an unexpected conclusion: the wave of economic growth of the past two-plus centuries is based on a unique combination of circumstances in the world economic system of the 18th century. However, the initial impetus for growth has long since been exhausted. Are we in a position to take control of economic development, or will we have to accept a slow decline that threatens to turn into disaster at any moment? There is no answer to this question today, but the understanding of the real mechanisms of economic development presented in the book can serve as a basis for developing the necessary decisions.
The book will be interesting for specialists, as well as for a wide range of readers interested in economics. Oleg Grigoriev graduated from the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University, was a researcher at the Central Economics and Mathematics Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. He worked in the Supreme Council, the State Duma, in the Economic Department of the President of the Russian Federation. State Counselor First Class.
Over the past 10 years, I have repeatedly undertaken to write a book in which the results of my reasoning about the fundamentally important role division of labor in the economy, but each time faced insurmountable obstacles. Each advance in analysis required a revision, sometimes radical, of what had been previously written. Something needed to be clarified, something needed to be reworked. And with each new step, the procedure had to be repeated. From some point on, I realized that the only way to work on the presentation of a new theory is to consistently read courses of lectures on a wide range of economic problems.
With this iterative approach, it became possible to consistently clarify the content of the new economic theory, its system of concepts and internal relationships. Based on the results of the lecture courses, it became possible to look at all the accumulated material in its entirety, critically assess its condition, separate the important from the secondary, highlight areas that require further study and outline the ways for further research.
First big course lectures were organized by order of the EFKO Group of Companies for its corporate university. This still very "raw" course of lectures allowed me to fully appreciate the significance of the new approach to economic theory, its fundamental difference from traditional approaches, and also to determine the main directions of development of the theory.
Further development of the theory was carried out in the framework of reading more limited courses of lectures, as well as the work of a theoretical seminar organized by me. In 2012, at the initiative of P. Shchedrovitsky, another large course of lectures was organized at the Moscow Higher School of Social and economic sciences(Shaninka). In the course of this course, it was possible to develop a holistic concept of a new approach to economic theory, to create, if I may say so, its skeleton.
The next large course of lectures was delivered within the framework of the Research Center "Neo-Economics". In its course and in the course of numerous seminars, some important topics that previously remained outside the scope of the study were worked out, as well as a system of internal interconnections of the theory was formed. This book is based on the materials of the second and third courses of lectures. The main material is based on the course of lectures given at Shaninka, however, it has been substantially supplemented and refined in accordance with later research, reflected in next course... This circumstance explains some of the stylistic heterogeneity of the book, but it had to be sacrificed for the sake of the substantial unity of the material.
