Поиск по этому блогу

Klark651

Loading...

пятница, 17 апреля 2015 г.

This is not yet clear, the Liberal Yevgeny Yasin?

 Yasin: the country needs a policy of liberalizing the economy
News Newsland: Yasin: the country needs a policy of liberalizing the economy sidelines of the forum "Modernization of the economy and society," one of its main organizers, scientific director of HSE Yevgeny Yasin shared with "NO" his vision of the processes taking place in the economy.
After the anti-crisis measures taken by the Government to return to the growth of Russia allow only structural reforms. Need modernization of the economy, productivity growth, increasing efficiency. It can provide a new institutional framework that uses the benefits of the market economy. The country needs a policy of gradual liberalization of the economy based on free enterprise, competition, the rule of law.


I think that in 2012 Russia had a chance in the economic policy to the path of "decisive breakthrough", involving large-scale liberalization of the economy. This question is now off the agenda. Power all the time stuck to the inertial scenario, based on the relation to the price of oil. Now the government is trying variant mobilization scenario, increasing the role of the state, taking the policy of import substitution, increasing the growth of military production.
But the emphasis on import substitution under the constraint of external links will only lead to a simplification of the structure of the economy, support inefficient enterprises and ultimately to the depletion of resources and, after a brief recovery is likely to even deeper recession.
The only correct in the current environment scenario is the option of gradual Liberalization development involves finding balance between the interests of the ruling elite, society and business. If this option is combined with the institutional, structural reforms, while Russia will after some time to return to economic growth.
Source: newizv.ru
Actual Archive 2008
Russian state to Yasin.Modern Russian rulers and their ideologues today prefer not to dwell on that which we have a state, and whose interests it expresses, more speaking of GDP, exchange of currency units, national projects, roads, debt, taxes, and so forth, trying to touch as little as possible of this important question. Written in the Constitution that Russia - a democratic federal law state with a republican form of government, and that's it.

 
The latter, who was marked by an attempt to approach the question of the state, from a cohort of leaders of the CPSU and the post-perestroika era, was Mikhail Gorbachev. Then this figure, nothing new has failed to come up, pulled out into the daylight worn concept of "people's state", and began trumps them all, pretending that he has mastered and understood the modern state. In the end, this "people's state", somehow got into the crisis, the people did not want to defend "their" state, and it without any problems, thanks to the same figures of the Communist Party, became a bourgeois, so even with the oligarchic form of government. After these transformations do not fit in the narrow-minded view of the state, our professors and politicians no longer have decided not to raise this issue in order not to amuse people.
But then suddenly, Yevgeny Yasin, scientific director of the Higher School of Economics, and an active member of denationalization, the newspaper "Kommersant» №145, raised this issue and shared their misconceptions about the state, passing them off as scientific understanding than reiterated the well-known saying of Engels that the professor is not a scientist, and scientist Professor.
So what is in Russia for the state, according to Yassin? "Professional discussion (Professor in advance preparing a defense in an attempt to limit the scope of the discussion of its terminology, and their perceptions of the state) implies recognition of all certain assumptions, which are not the subject of the dispute, and its base.
There are only four. Firstly, the state of the economy is always present, and no one argues that it should leave at all. Second, differences of opinion are to the roles that are recognized by the state. The main of them - ensuring law and order; macroeconomic stability; defense and security; formation of necessary public institutions; provision of public services (health, education, and so on. n.); social protection; environmental security; promote the development of the economy (which is just referred to as structural or industrial policy); eliminating "defects of the market" (including through direct control of prices, wages, and so on. n.); state enterprise (production of goods and services that can be produced by private companies).
Third, in life are circumstances that make it appropriate for the State to any of these functions in a given volume. Sometimes it is necessary to increase the role of the state and brings a positive effect. But the government is better cope with their tasks, the better understanding on what direction should focus. And finally, fourth, selection of the optimal level of state involvement in the economy must take into account the conditions and the stage of development of the country, its position relative to other countries, especially the national culture and institutions. "
That's how much the professor uttered platitudes about the state, but in fact nothing significant has said. What begins! "First, the state of the economy is always present, and no one argues that it should go at all." This statement may be added that the Volga flows into the Caspian Sea, the moon revolves around the Earth, and the Earth around the Sun, etc. And not only beginners but also throughout his article, Professor gives many obvious and meaningless statements: "capitalism passed industrial stage and entered the post-industrial era", "large corporations have crossed national borders," and the like.
But then, when the professor is taken to talk about the features that are recognized by the state, even more interesting. The main task, which, according to Yassin, performs the state - is "to ensure law and order." Indeed the case. But most importantly, in the definition and understanding of the state, not the state to enforce the law and order, and then, in whose interests the laws are written, and which is supported by the procedure. I must admit that not only in Russia but also in Germany and France, and in Mexico there are republican form of government, but the results of this board are significantly different. Today in Russia we see that the existing laws, all the time, provide enrichment of a small part of the population and the poverty of the majority of the people. To understand this there is no need to delve too much into the theory. It is enough to impartially assess the events.

 
Whose interests on earth, protect prosecutors in Surgut, trying to influence the chairman of the trade union committee of the independent trade union "Surgutneftegaz" Alexander Zakharkina demanding higher wages? No less colorfully describes the modern Russian state and the government's attitude to the hunger strike of workers of the Voronezh excavator plant, which plant management owes a huge amount of salary. And thousands of protests of workers in other enterprises.

 
Pay in most cases education and health care, miserable pensions and benefits, along with extremely high income individual oligarchs, do not talk about whose interests defends the State? Social spending on education and health authorities to allocate a penny, and the lion's share of revenue it spends to ensure their domination. And in another way, for a given system of government can not be.
Yevgeny Yasin worth before to talk about law and order, to look at what our laws are passed by the Duma, and what a wave of protest these laws cause of the people. Take, for instance, the new Housing Code. Yes, and the social composition of the Duma already says a lot. Yes, it would not hurt to put the question of the legality of ownership, separate oligarchs and officials, a huge property and finances of the country.
Professor arguments about the "provision of public services (health, education, and so on. N.); social protection; environmental security; not worth a penny, because it does not shows the ratio of costs, the share of social spending in general, the product of the nation.
According to the expert INDEM, the annual bribe Russian officials exceeds 316 billion. Dollars. Moreover, a sharp increase (13-fold) occurred in the past five years. Just think - 316 billion. Dollars! Three budget! One budget goes to maintenance of the army, and pay civil servants' provision of public services ", and three into the pockets of officials. If we add the revenues of big capitalist monopolies, all arguments Yassin, the state, as representatives of the entire society, the state acting as a "night watchman" in the rule of law, burst like a soap bubble.
As for "the promotion of economic development," then you can say only one thing that the modern Russian state and contributes to the economy. But assists in keeping with its oligarchic character, raising tariffs for monopolies, and providing them, and including myself, huge profits.
The last two comments of Professor Yasin, on the basic assumptions for determining the state can be regarded as the top demagoguery. Professor informs readers that: "... in life are circumstances that make it appropriate for the State to any of these functions in a given volume." Uncertain circumstances which readers must have guessed, doing, apparently somehow vague and indefinite extent, but it is advisable, to perform any functions. But in order to achieve an indeterminate result, continues to Yasin, you must "take into account the conditions and the stage of development of the country, its position relative to other countries, especially the national culture and institutions." That's it! Engage in science - it will not turn the thimble.
In his revelations Professor Yasin, once again repeated the old bourgeois pacifier, trying to convince readers that the state - it is not a class institution that provides power to the ruling class, and universal institution designed to ensure "law and order". Apparently assuming that there are eternal laws that stand above the interests of certain people, respect for which the state should provide. One word got to the point of progressives who claim that there is always the potential for development, existing State. Just what is meant by the development of the state, if it rests on the development of operation, that is not the development of the bulk of the people.

 
Preached his views on the state has long been disproved, the most recognized minds of humanity proved the inadequacy of the bourgeois view of the state, and by the history of the development of society. But as we can see, today's ideologues of the Russian state, ready to use any old way, in order to strengthen the power of the bourgeois state, led by liberal bureaucrats who wishes to present Yassin as nationwide.
Acquainted with the opus Yevgeny Yasin, who does not who does not explain inadvertently pose the question: why Professor Yasin, suddenly began to write on the state and what is the purpose of this article? And on closer view to find answers, which concluded just a few sentences.

 
It turns out that in the current context of increasing state when the power for fear of being overthrown, and in anticipation of the upcoming presidential elections, has to limit the appetite of the oligarchs and the big monopolies, Yasin was important to state that "the state - a bad businessman." "In the past three years, the real strengthening of the role of the state in the modernization of the economy has not happened." "The state has not reached significant success in the main function of a" night watchman "in the rule of law." "The tendency to a weakening macroeconomic policy. - Continues to escalate a negative assessment of the state Professor Yasin. - Institutional reforms mostly frozen. At the same time promoting economic development, useful structural changes carried out in insufficient scale, in particular, due to the shortcomings of the state apparatus.
But growing public sector, priority is given to public enterprise. During this time, according to conservative estimates, the state has acquired the assets of approximately $ 35-40 billion, including "Yuganskneftegaz", "Sibneft", "Power Machines". Therefore, it is clearly not doing that. "
All this shows that Professor Yasin no not an economist and ideologue of oligarchic capital. His statements he is trying to drive into the heads of readers thought that today the state and its leaders do not come true, then do not. That of the many shortcomings of the state apparatus. That modernization of the economy has not happened. That those non oligarchs pumped out of the country's resources, there were more properly and limit their predatory interests is not a matter of the state. The state, in the words of an ideologue, should act as a "night watchman", ie make pot of Abramovich or Vekselberg, and not to interfere in their affairs.

 
Such a state Yassin and his companions and built. But that's a small misfire came as some government officials do not agree on the role of night workers, with the oligarchs. Somehow it is quite improper to serve the oligarchs whose property entirely stolen. And why serve them when there is in the hands of the real power? Let them serve as Yassin and other leaders from science and true citizens and scientists to present it to anything.

Vitaly Glukhov  

Yevgeny Yasin PROGRAM '90s - a time of hope "on" Echo of Moscow "
Radio "Echo of Moscow", January 31, 2008
Natella Boltyanskaya: 22 hours 12 minutes.
- E. Yasin: ... I remember very well, as in the 90 th year in December Gossnab on Orlikov Lane was collected in December meeting, there were 2.5 thousand of directors of large companies, etc. And Mr. Bridge then chairman of State Logistics Committee, which recently arrived from Ukraine, he said: guys, here you are sitting here, what you want, until you sign a contract issued by us outfits, you will not leave. In the view of the pavement, and the people who worked in Moscow in the central organs, non-conclusion of the contract - it was the collapse of the entire system planning. And they did not understand how the economy will work tomorrow without their guidance. But this system has stopped working. And the director acted very wisely in their own way. They did not know they were under these agreements to these outfits will receive or not receive the products. Because it is as if it was necessary to produce a partially state orders at lower prices. Then you can sell some products at higher prices. And the director simply argued. It is now called, they are ready for sale on the spot market. Ie market casual relationships where contacts were established, and the sale was carried out without the participation of the parent organizations. Ie as would have spontaneously begin to form spontaneously market. But for the State Supply it was a nightmare.
- E. Yasin: ... Second, our economic science, my science is mainly ideological framing of the Communist Party. It develops ideological issues, well, more or less practically specific economic issues, it also develops, but the theory was poorly developed. And so we were not ready to give specific recommendations. I wrote a book called "economic system and radical reforms." It came out in '89, shortly before I went to work at the unit of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. There I was, after a long agony. I rewrote it four times, I have come to the conclusion that we have a very interesting phenomenon, namely, that the two systems - the planned and the market, they are internally very logical. Planned, especially if you take along with repression. At the same time, they are totally incompatible. How would you whatever you do if you start to change something, always made worse because violated the integrity, that this internal consistency. I found came to the conclusion that the only case where there is such compatibility is when will the equilibrium price set, or somehow obtained. But the thing is that the equilibrium price can only make the market. The plan, as there spoke about the optimal planning, he almost can not do it. So, one thing remained, if you want to jump, it's a trap here in this was. Whatever you do, do worse, go back, worse, forward, worse.
... But I have a feeling it was physical. I just have hair on the body and head remnants stuck all the time. Because I had no idea how to do it. But he had to be addressed. Because neither there nor here,
... Leszek Balcerowicz said: make capitalism socialism - is like to cook soup from an aquarium with goldfish. And then to make of socialism, capitalism ...
N. BOLTYANSKAYA: On the contrary.
Yasin: It's like that to take ear and out to make an aquarium with goldfish. I confess Balcerowicz several overreacted. But the essence remains the same. It was an extremely difficult exercise.
... I am not going to say what I can say, on the radio or even somehow convince all who listen to us. I am sure that it will be then another stream of questions, letters, or objections, which will again say that plundered the country, etc.
N. BOLTYANSKAYA: No, Eugene G. ...
Yasin: But I'd really like to have this idea sunk.
... H. BOLTYANSKAYA: Ie relatively speaking, it turns out that, on the basis of your argument, Yeltsin and Gaidar not find fault must be everywhere, and bless and thank you.
Yasin: Well, I personally think so. I would advise our listeners to carefully read his books. He recently made a presentation. The day before yesterday the report sounded in our school. This excellent report ...
N. BOLTYANSKAYA: Eugene G. ... Or do you not finished yet?
Yasin: I now want to finish a certain thought. Indeed, I must say that the most important thing that happened back then, it was the will to take these extremely unpopular decisions. And there were two people who have assumed responsibility for it. And we commend them for responsibility. Yeltsin and Gaidar it. I asked Gaidar. Here you are going to do that? Well, I do not want a long story. It was in October '91. He said to me: You know what we need to do can be done only under two conditions. With brutal military dictatorship, or a charismatic leader who cover their weight situation, and lay your credibility. Put it on the altar of the most brutal reforms, and the country will come to some sort of trunk road which will develop. We happiness basement. It consists in the fact that we had Boris Yeltsin, who's had the necessary charisma and laid his authority. Yegor Gaidar and very small team, with whom he worked, they really know what to do. And so, I think that it was a heroic feat. Just imagine, you have to decide on something like that. I think that this feat is no less than many other historical achievements of our country. And so when I just heard that the Americans set Pobednik in the Cold War, I must say that this is not true, it is in fact false. Because they did not beat us. They did not beat us in this war in the cold. We ourselves have won their drawbacks. It is much harder. It is much more important. And, of course, should be proud of the fact that among us there were people who were able to make this feat.
N. BOLTYANSKAYA: Eugene G., here is a letter your email address, which came to me on the site. Meaning, its author Lily asks you to create a book economic literacy campaign. If you recommend a logical sequence of books on the Elimination of economic illiteracy. For example, in the book with a period of three months.
Yasin: Well, I would advise you now the first such most popular book on the economic side. It's called "Pass". Wrote her Leonid Isidorovich Lopatnikov. He is a very interesting person. Veteran of the Great Patriotic War. And the man who has long been involved as well, would be a promotion of economic and mathematical studies, etc. Book called "Pass". She went out last year and written in a very easy and easy to read. This is the first thing that I can think of. But in fact, many such books. I can maybe like Pinch his own modesty, but I will say that there is still a book that I wrote, and I use to teach students at the Higher School of Economics. It's called "The Russian economy. The origins and the panorama of reforms." There all the problems that we will discuss now, the most important questions are devoted much more detail. And of course, the book Gaidar I also advise.

N. BOLTYANSKAYA: Yes. Well, something else tell.
Yasin: Yes, all the same, it does not suit here, Mr. Stepashkina, translator. So he writes in particular: "The reforms were in Poland. Reforms Lewandowski. (No Lewandowski was not. I'm talking about.) Who created the middle class, have kept the industry. The reforms were in the Czech Republic. Where zanyuhanny" Skoda "became" Faltsvagenom " . We have no reform was not. Is it possible to consider reforms lowering the ruble to 5,000 per dollar, total impoverishment, destruction of the industry. " In general, there was nothing. And the main authority is Paul Khlebnikov, who wrote the book "Berezovsky - Godfather of the Kremlin or a history of disintegration of Russia." Well, the issue of fragmentation in Russia, it was or was not, we will discuss. But I just want to say that if our citizen Stepashkina there is the idea that Paul Khlebnikov - is the most important authority and the main problem - is to find the culprit, well, then you have to go to Corsica. That's where the regions, which have been described by Prosper Merimee.
N. BOLTYANSKAYA: here on the pessimistic, I would say that note, I ...

 
_____________________________________________________________
AMERICANS it hot!The reward for winning the Cold War belongs to the best people ...That is - the US!
If you take the newsreels of the time, which, in recent times, as often with pain and involuntary warmth tells urbi et orbi economist Yevgeny Yasin, you will see: - In the foreground there is always Gennady Burbulis. And his left hand, respectively - Yegor Gaidar!
So it is more historically accurate. And much, much more scientific of all that "vivid colors" of his sincere and honest scientific soul depicts our "economist".
However, live paint not only "malyuet" picture of life lived by all of us, under the leadership of Burbulis, Gaidar, Boris Yeltsin ... Yassin and to an even greater degree, she portrays, all of us, the hidden essence of the artist. So to speak, "the other side of the Moon" ...
So, what kind of picture 90 eloquently hides from us the hero N. BOLTYANSKAYA interview? Try to read it as text ordinary reader's eye, free from the inevitable regular engagement of any journalist of "Echo of Moscow".
So:
1. By the mid-1980s before all the bosses of the USSR there was a question that historic mandate for his "regency" in the public ownership of the country ended. And that government leverage on its control (= ownership) it is time to strongly transmit to the people: workers, peasants and their children.2. E. Yasin clearly demonstrates that this really none of his then (and current!) Colleagues "successful career" - and did not dream. Namely: no Gossnab; or "red directors" (now - RSPP); neither party secretary of the Communist Party; no Soviet intelligentsia; nor complementary Yasin-Gaidar "humanitarian intelligentsia"; nor her obedient and devoted "Guard" - graduates of journalism at Moscow State University and Ural State University; nor, finally, he himself, with all professionally and consciously complementary to each other uncritical korparatsii "of economists." Ever, that "fear", "did not understand", but "ventured" desperately ... And now he plays on an enlarged scale in its HSE.3. Yasin willingly gave up political economy, which alone could about all this, strictly scientific manner warn. And learn what to do! Soviet party organizers (now the "United Russia" and others.) Red Director (now RSPP et al.), The party-hozAktiv (now the "average" and so forth. "Business"), and "golden personnel reserve of the Party" (now ex- faculty of social sciences departments) All this, all of them - Yasin allowed.4. This state of affairs in the country, in the language of the Soviet bureaucracy and complementary to her ex-official of Political Economy, called "reduction in capital productivity" and "crisis of the economic mechanism" ... And the language of folk - "They pretend to pay us, and we do pretend that we are "them" work "...5. Soviet and party organizers zavy departments of scientific communism, rather than to help "hard workers" (ie, the owner, the most democratic form of private property - labor) went to pay homage to the "red directors". Concluded "economic agreements" on theme: "Only bosses know what genuine socialism! Only this same boss (and his kids) know what a real Capitalism "(Payments made: all the last fifteen years, they - well fed and comfortable ... not starving).6. Now this today, here are the product of their own affairs, pets E. Yasin (PCA et al.) And referred to as "gangster capitalism". Why? Because (when changing Yeltsin - Putin) suffered damage in its exclusive position of former (and deserved) Pets Party Committee.7. Then, at the turn of the early '90s, there was a hysterical Part-owls host nomenclature: "And I myself -" DO NOT GAM ", and others - will not give!" And then it came Gennady Burbulis, who offered them all :, namely you - "GAM", and he - "GAM", but no one else - will not give! Good, eh ?! Immediately (as a sign of approval and consent!) Urgently organized "extras" (first "Ural" and then "all-Russian") from the Soviet intelligentsia. And began the process of "conversion" of power: partkomovskoy - in the Soviet. Soviet - in administration. And, really, that - in irresponsible to the people, "paperwork" (+ "voucher") for "registration of private property" ...8. Mode (socio-psychological) of this conversion - the cult of personality immediate superiors. "Spiritual" motivation - the struggle for democracy. Methodical means "visibility" - the denial of Stalinism "and" totalitarianism. Repressive shout for "democratically disagree" - Stalinist, chauvinist, fascist ... By all the laws of frame-work of the Soviet Communist Party committee of the party, this mode (for the production of millionaires-beneficiaries), was issued as private property Burbulis - Yeltsin. (And to this day this regime is alive and well in the form of a completely irrational hegemony Burbulisovsko-Eltsinovskoy the Constitution of the Russian Federation on anyone and everyone, disadvantaged them, a resident of the country ... (With E. Yasin welcomed warmly and no alternative).9. Yeltsin himself - in the whole of our common history - part of the victim (!) ... He used to listen to professors of scientific communism. Party discipline is obliged! As Secretary of Party Committee of - he knew how to lead the state through party discipline (see. Biography of him). And then suddenly followed partkomovsky order: - "Set aside the Communist Party! From now on - to lead the state "strictly anti-Party, anti-Soviet!" - There !!! - For the old, old-PARTY PARTKOMOVSKOY his habit he said ...10. And then it came to him "to help" our economist Yevgeny Yasin. And helped to overcome all earthly confusion over 90s, as alleged, the infamous "party atavism" ...11. ... It was then that, among other things, with the scientific and historical desire, and Burbulis could "find an excuse" Namely, from the point of view of the History as an academic discipline, G.BURBULIS - is "labeled atoms". And by the way, in front of the world communist movement "has merit." Judge for yourself. Thanks to him, and now the schoolboy it is clear that: - "red directors" - or what not red; - "The Soviet leaders" - or what they do not Soviet; - "Party secretary" - not what they do not "party", and a very (and very happy!) - Anti-Party ...; - And "Zavy various departments of Marxism-Leninism" - or what they are not "Marxists" nor "Leninists", and very willingly, and vice versa ...12. Oh, and that Soviet scientists and economists - and no it does not "scientists" - eloquently and in detail told us himself Yevgeny Yasin in this very, very entertaining interview.
      
Convincing - and do not tell!

Michael Kazarinov,
Accountant of the Permian.


Комментариев нет:

Отправить комментарий