(Manilovschina.RU) Offer readers of the site "Politucheba" to get acquainted with another paper project for the Russian economy, which was announced by "Times". Italics my comment. Ivan Tevrizsky
"We can develop and a half times faster" NOVEMBER 14, 13:09 / / Catherine Mereminskaya The Russian economy can grow and a half times faster - with annual GDP growth of 10% and inflation of 5-5,5%, promises a program of socio-economic development of Russia "Second Wind" for 2008-2010. How to achieve such results, "Times" said the author of the program, Director of Strategic Analysis FBK, Doctor of Economics Igor Nikolaev.
Judging by the name of the program of socio-economic development of Russia, I think, that we are already running, and now we need a second wind. The question of where and why we run, the authors of the program is meant as a closed issue.
- Why is there a need for socio-economic development of Russia for 2008-2010 "Second Wind"?
- There is no soundly, well-designed, competitive and realistic medium-term program. Government program, designed for 2006-2008 - this is not what is now needed. It focuses not on the main, the most pressing problems. As we heard from the media, the government has a program right up to 2020. Now, it turns out, no! The authors, as the answers and found the main problem of our coexistence - no soundly program! The problem is found, we'll see how they deal with it.
It would seem that we are developing well: 7% economic growth annually since the beginning of the two thousandth's - this is a good indicator. But this is not our level. You always have to look not at what we have now, and that we could have under current conditions.
And could we th .. th .. th! The authors tell us. Let no one China, with its 11-12% annual growth in GDP, but 10% we can overcome. Probably could, but my way is not obtained. Why is not obtained, the author of the newly-made program is modestly silent. Silent on principal, describing particular. But at the same time, want their opus taken seriously. We are able to grow more rapidly, and the official program, by contrast, provides a steady decline in growth to 6-6,5% by 2010. Therefore need another program aimed at accelerating economic growth. In the old program is drawn not sure the trend of development, we are told the developers. And if the authors draw a graph, then we will evolve differently. Simple as that: you take a pencil and draw! And then we, the stupid thought that the movement of society is carried out not in accordance with the schedules, and as a result of the struggle of interests of different classes and groups. Apparently not! So why, then, only 10%? Let's draw ourselves 25% of GDP growth. That world is a surprise. Draw and then life would start.
Other important government mid-term paper - the federal budget for 2008-2010 - is also not realistic. All the indicators out there already "floated". It laid an average reduction of oil prices from $ 55 per barrel in 2007 to $ 50 in 2010. At the same time in late 2007, we see $ 100 a barrel. And inflation? Well, who would believe, tell me that next year inflation will be 7%? And they do not have our trust! They need only obey. What they have successfully and seek. Consequently, the budget does not provide an adequate idea of what awaits us in the next 3 years. This is another important argument in favor of the development of our program.
Igor Nikolaev, ought to know before making such statements that the budget is not to implement it, and to dupe people. And what is the expected price of oil may actually understate specifically to be able to dispose of unaccounted funds, in fact, be taken into account in the budget will be only those funds that are already considered and itemize expenses.
- What goals would achieve its implementation?
- We can develop and a half times faster. I am convinced that the level at which we can reach by 2010 - a 10.9% growth. To do this we must obtain consolidate and develop investment model of economic growth. She began to take shape in 2007, investment growth will be around 20%. Where disappear oligarchs and a huge army of officials, and only thinking, where else would grab a "piece"? Maybe they will give up profits and bribes to complete development program proposed by Nikolaev and his colleagues? Something of this tendency is not observed. Workers many businesses can never achieve pay increases. Almost all of their strikes are declared by the courts is not legitimate, and the program's authors are trying to convince all that the behavior of modern rulers just a small misunderstanding. However!
- What are the obstacles to development, it should be, in your opinion, correct?
- To consolidate the investment model, you need to remove infrastructural constraints of economic growth. They have now operate in all areas: energy, transport and gas industry.
The main mistake in recent years was the official policy of transfer of natural assets in the financial. Behind those words ctabfond. My question is: why do we have proclaimed a policy of translation of natural resources in the financial, rather than a policy of translation of natural resources in the material? It is obvious that invest in physical assets - is more reliable and correct, because these assets - is the foundation for economic growth.
The main thing that needs to be done - is to change existing policy. We must translate into tangible natural assets and infrastructure first.
Failed to you? Those who seized power in the country and is making billions on the sale of natural resources does not nourish any illusions, and only laugh at such schemer. The authors of the program should contact the Russian oligarchs and explain that they are wrong. Yes sensitization if they are, of course, will listen and not put up there.
- You offer to give up the stabilization fund?
- I am sure that in our country properly to form large financial reserves, the money bag (I do not mean reserves). Maintain such a bag can only be for the time being - by hook or by crook it will "cut". But if you build a railroad or highway of federal importance, it would be difficult to pull apart. When up the money bag will get, I assure you will be spending far less rational than that of the full budget process.
If, so now would be a hindrance. The authors of the program would be worth to clarify before talk about the bag of money, where this money? Bag, then that show people, is empty. There are only a debt of American States.
Are invalid and divide by oil and gas and oil and gas revenues, which stands now in our budget. For analytical purposes, it can be done, but in practice the budget process to do it properly. Separation of oil and gas money, contingency fund, sovereign wealth we violate the essential principle of the budget process - the principle of balance, when the cost should be equal to income. They have equal, but only after we separate from a huge chunk of revenue. Piece to be separated and that this someone has to, and someone can do it smoothly and it does not matter right or wrong, in terms of Nikolaev. It is proposed to abandon the term stabilization fund and now consistently implement a policy that we did not have such a tool. How? If we say that the most important problem - the infrastructure constraints of economic growth, it means we have to channel the funds to address this problem.
From such policies benefit more inflation risk is less than the realization that any day someone will cut another 200-500 billion rubles, and they will infuse into the economy. - With this you also offer to reform the Investment Fund. Why? After all, these funds just go to the solution of infrastructure problems.
- Now Investment Fund was created as a mechanism for implementation of projects of national importance. But what sort of projects appear? Going to the application, and then evaluated whether the proposed projects of national significance. As a result of this flawed policy of a nation-wide importance of funded projects seems to be rather controversial. For example, some railways, financed from the fund, on closer examination, turn out to be access roads to specific fields, enterprises. Business structures suggest that the benefit to them, not the state. This is natural. A State may ask, in whose hands? How are human resource policies in this state? Before we talk about the state, ought to understand what the state we have. My question is: why the state first determines that it is really necessary, then do not offer on a competitive basis to implement it? We propose to introduce such a mechanism.
- One of the main reasons for creating ctabfonda - fear to put the money into the economy, as it will accelerate inflation. Do you offer ctabfond spend. To what higher prices will lead the program?
- This will give the same figures, which are now planned. But it was planned - 5-5,5% by 2010. In the present circumstances, when the 2007 will 11-11,5%, not 8%, this level is impossible to imagine. But we say that we can achieve that, but then you have to radically change the perspective on how to fight inflation.
The main mistake of anti-inflation fight - a promise that inflation depends primarily on how much money in the economy. This is an important indicator, but also for inflation affects the level of competition in the economy. But we underestimated this impact, and I can understand why: because the fight against inflation, sterilizing the money supply, it is easier than stimulating, promote competition.
Rabbit - it's not just three or four kilograms of meat diet, but ... We must assume that today's monopolies are stupid and naive enough that they are ready themselves to create problems, since the competition - a fight the capitalists for profit margins. And therefore, willing to give up profits for the sake of a mythical competition, suggested by the authors of the program. Are they masochists? They do not need the money, gave the competition, the Baule, that it wants a group of developers of the program "Second Wind".
- The program offers non-insurance part of pension. Why?
- The implementation of insurance principles in the pension system - is generally nonsense. Insurance system can function if the fees paid by all, and the insured event occurs is not for everyone. If an insured event occurs for each or for at least 50-60% (those who die before retirement), the system can not exist.
We offer clarity, leaving the two parts of the pension. State can not leave people to their fate, even if it did not work. If the retirement age, it should guarantee certain payments, regardless of seniority. This is a basic part of pension, social. How noble! In the future, it should be financed through the budget. Another part, of course, depends on how long the person worked, how much he got. This funded a part which is formed by contributions from employees and employers on an equal basis.
And if it did not work, and rubbed his pants in the Duma? How, then, be?
This system could not be achieved if the state had no money. In the transitional period, which will take 10-15 years will require the use possibilities of the budget. Finance the state's enough - after all, and now to cover the deficit of the Pension Fund budget was allocated to 170 billion rubles, and by 2010 the amount will increase to 227.4 billion rubles.
During the transition period, we use the same tools, but the finish will have a system that will be flawed, predetermining the pension fund deficit.
A lot of empty and meaningless arguments and a single word about that in our country there are two pension law: one for the masters of life, for officials and public servants, and another - for wage slaves. And while this system will be a pension for labor, among other things, properly named, will be meager. Manilovschina.ru which stands for science.
- You offer to increase by at least 50% of teachers' salaries. Yes, and to increase payments to state more rapidly than planned. Whether to do the calculations on how much money to do it?
- We can finance this increase, not accumulating funds in ctabfonde. In general, ask where to get money for state employees, at oil prices of $ 100 per barrel - it is somehow unclear. There is money.
- And do not affect whether it is on inflation?
- It is necessary to take into account the consumption pattern of poor public sector employees. What they would spend the money? For basic necessities, especially not the most expensive and therefore most likely represented by our businesses. This is a consumer activity, is to stimulate domestic production. More production, more competition, respectively, less than inflation. "Good" uncles want to convince people that this government, everything is possible and is wanted. Possible, and to feed the wolf and a sheep to keep. In fact, they feed the illusion that this government represents the interests of society as a whole and all the problems of our society in the wrong approach to transfer of natural assets in some other, rather than financial assets. - How do you think will listen to the advice of a BCF? Is there a "second wind" chance of being realized?
- Yes, the demand for independent analysts is low, but something still is heard. Another thing is that the quality of performance is sometimes (as was the case with the tax amnesty, and especially with the monetization of benefits), which is annoying - it would be better not to bother. But always hoping for the best, and I am now convinced that the implementation of the program - it's just a matter of time. What self-adoration! They suggested that the analyst! Well, wow! And that analyzed? Apparently, the authors of the proposed program are tired of their "independence" and lack of money and are out to get on prokorm to those in power. Here then is fastened dialogue: the creators of the program screaming that they did a great job, all reviewed and offer to implement their program. And the authorities they were told that they have a program that they may not contain a large mass of the drafters of the programs. Here the authors of "second wind" are taken as criticism of existing programs and say that your program is not realistic, you are wrong, and graphics. And those who are at the helm and do not pay attention to these critics, because, in reality, any programs they implement and are not collected. And the true motives of authors newly-fledged program to understand. Here Nikolayev starts to blackmail them by threatening to make its program publicity.
We will send the program to all public authorities, to whom it may be interesting, we will distribute to the media and among the professional community.
We ought to send back in the Sports Lottery. There they will read. But it will not sell. Opportunities there.
Ivan Tevrizsky
16.11. 2007
"We can develop and a half times faster" NOVEMBER 14, 13:09 / / Catherine Mereminskaya The Russian economy can grow and a half times faster - with annual GDP growth of 10% and inflation of 5-5,5%, promises a program of socio-economic development of Russia "Second Wind" for 2008-2010. How to achieve such results, "Times" said the author of the program, Director of Strategic Analysis FBK, Doctor of Economics Igor Nikolaev.
Judging by the name of the program of socio-economic development of Russia, I think, that we are already running, and now we need a second wind. The question of where and why we run, the authors of the program is meant as a closed issue.
- Why is there a need for socio-economic development of Russia for 2008-2010 "Second Wind"?
- There is no soundly, well-designed, competitive and realistic medium-term program. Government program, designed for 2006-2008 - this is not what is now needed. It focuses not on the main, the most pressing problems. As we heard from the media, the government has a program right up to 2020. Now, it turns out, no! The authors, as the answers and found the main problem of our coexistence - no soundly program! The problem is found, we'll see how they deal with it.
It would seem that we are developing well: 7% economic growth annually since the beginning of the two thousandth's - this is a good indicator. But this is not our level. You always have to look not at what we have now, and that we could have under current conditions.
And could we th .. th .. th! The authors tell us. Let no one China, with its 11-12% annual growth in GDP, but 10% we can overcome. Probably could, but my way is not obtained. Why is not obtained, the author of the newly-made program is modestly silent. Silent on principal, describing particular. But at the same time, want their opus taken seriously. We are able to grow more rapidly, and the official program, by contrast, provides a steady decline in growth to 6-6,5% by 2010. Therefore need another program aimed at accelerating economic growth. In the old program is drawn not sure the trend of development, we are told the developers. And if the authors draw a graph, then we will evolve differently. Simple as that: you take a pencil and draw! And then we, the stupid thought that the movement of society is carried out not in accordance with the schedules, and as a result of the struggle of interests of different classes and groups. Apparently not! So why, then, only 10%? Let's draw ourselves 25% of GDP growth. That world is a surprise. Draw and then life would start.
Other important government mid-term paper - the federal budget for 2008-2010 - is also not realistic. All the indicators out there already "floated". It laid an average reduction of oil prices from $ 55 per barrel in 2007 to $ 50 in 2010. At the same time in late 2007, we see $ 100 a barrel. And inflation? Well, who would believe, tell me that next year inflation will be 7%? And they do not have our trust! They need only obey. What they have successfully and seek. Consequently, the budget does not provide an adequate idea of what awaits us in the next 3 years. This is another important argument in favor of the development of our program.
Igor Nikolaev, ought to know before making such statements that the budget is not to implement it, and to dupe people. And what is the expected price of oil may actually understate specifically to be able to dispose of unaccounted funds, in fact, be taken into account in the budget will be only those funds that are already considered and itemize expenses.
- What goals would achieve its implementation?
- We can develop and a half times faster. I am convinced that the level at which we can reach by 2010 - a 10.9% growth. To do this we must obtain consolidate and develop investment model of economic growth. She began to take shape in 2007, investment growth will be around 20%. Where disappear oligarchs and a huge army of officials, and only thinking, where else would grab a "piece"? Maybe they will give up profits and bribes to complete development program proposed by Nikolaev and his colleagues? Something of this tendency is not observed. Workers many businesses can never achieve pay increases. Almost all of their strikes are declared by the courts is not legitimate, and the program's authors are trying to convince all that the behavior of modern rulers just a small misunderstanding. However!
- What are the obstacles to development, it should be, in your opinion, correct?
- To consolidate the investment model, you need to remove infrastructural constraints of economic growth. They have now operate in all areas: energy, transport and gas industry.
The main mistake in recent years was the official policy of transfer of natural assets in the financial. Behind those words ctabfond. My question is: why do we have proclaimed a policy of translation of natural resources in the financial, rather than a policy of translation of natural resources in the material? It is obvious that invest in physical assets - is more reliable and correct, because these assets - is the foundation for economic growth.
The main thing that needs to be done - is to change existing policy. We must translate into tangible natural assets and infrastructure first.
Failed to you? Those who seized power in the country and is making billions on the sale of natural resources does not nourish any illusions, and only laugh at such schemer. The authors of the program should contact the Russian oligarchs and explain that they are wrong. Yes sensitization if they are, of course, will listen and not put up there.
- You offer to give up the stabilization fund?
- I am sure that in our country properly to form large financial reserves, the money bag (I do not mean reserves). Maintain such a bag can only be for the time being - by hook or by crook it will "cut". But if you build a railroad or highway of federal importance, it would be difficult to pull apart. When up the money bag will get, I assure you will be spending far less rational than that of the full budget process.
If, so now would be a hindrance. The authors of the program would be worth to clarify before talk about the bag of money, where this money? Bag, then that show people, is empty. There are only a debt of American States.
Are invalid and divide by oil and gas and oil and gas revenues, which stands now in our budget. For analytical purposes, it can be done, but in practice the budget process to do it properly. Separation of oil and gas money, contingency fund, sovereign wealth we violate the essential principle of the budget process - the principle of balance, when the cost should be equal to income. They have equal, but only after we separate from a huge chunk of revenue. Piece to be separated and that this someone has to, and someone can do it smoothly and it does not matter right or wrong, in terms of Nikolaev. It is proposed to abandon the term stabilization fund and now consistently implement a policy that we did not have such a tool. How? If we say that the most important problem - the infrastructure constraints of economic growth, it means we have to channel the funds to address this problem.
From such policies benefit more inflation risk is less than the realization that any day someone will cut another 200-500 billion rubles, and they will infuse into the economy. - With this you also offer to reform the Investment Fund. Why? After all, these funds just go to the solution of infrastructure problems.
- Now Investment Fund was created as a mechanism for implementation of projects of national importance. But what sort of projects appear? Going to the application, and then evaluated whether the proposed projects of national significance. As a result of this flawed policy of a nation-wide importance of funded projects seems to be rather controversial. For example, some railways, financed from the fund, on closer examination, turn out to be access roads to specific fields, enterprises. Business structures suggest that the benefit to them, not the state. This is natural. A State may ask, in whose hands? How are human resource policies in this state? Before we talk about the state, ought to understand what the state we have. My question is: why the state first determines that it is really necessary, then do not offer on a competitive basis to implement it? We propose to introduce such a mechanism.
- One of the main reasons for creating ctabfonda - fear to put the money into the economy, as it will accelerate inflation. Do you offer ctabfond spend. To what higher prices will lead the program?
- This will give the same figures, which are now planned. But it was planned - 5-5,5% by 2010. In the present circumstances, when the 2007 will 11-11,5%, not 8%, this level is impossible to imagine. But we say that we can achieve that, but then you have to radically change the perspective on how to fight inflation.
The main mistake of anti-inflation fight - a promise that inflation depends primarily on how much money in the economy. This is an important indicator, but also for inflation affects the level of competition in the economy. But we underestimated this impact, and I can understand why: because the fight against inflation, sterilizing the money supply, it is easier than stimulating, promote competition.
Rabbit - it's not just three or four kilograms of meat diet, but ... We must assume that today's monopolies are stupid and naive enough that they are ready themselves to create problems, since the competition - a fight the capitalists for profit margins. And therefore, willing to give up profits for the sake of a mythical competition, suggested by the authors of the program. Are they masochists? They do not need the money, gave the competition, the Baule, that it wants a group of developers of the program "Second Wind".
- The program offers non-insurance part of pension. Why?
- The implementation of insurance principles in the pension system - is generally nonsense. Insurance system can function if the fees paid by all, and the insured event occurs is not for everyone. If an insured event occurs for each or for at least 50-60% (those who die before retirement), the system can not exist.
We offer clarity, leaving the two parts of the pension. State can not leave people to their fate, even if it did not work. If the retirement age, it should guarantee certain payments, regardless of seniority. This is a basic part of pension, social. How noble! In the future, it should be financed through the budget. Another part, of course, depends on how long the person worked, how much he got. This funded a part which is formed by contributions from employees and employers on an equal basis.
And if it did not work, and rubbed his pants in the Duma? How, then, be?
This system could not be achieved if the state had no money. In the transitional period, which will take 10-15 years will require the use possibilities of the budget. Finance the state's enough - after all, and now to cover the deficit of the Pension Fund budget was allocated to 170 billion rubles, and by 2010 the amount will increase to 227.4 billion rubles.
During the transition period, we use the same tools, but the finish will have a system that will be flawed, predetermining the pension fund deficit.
A lot of empty and meaningless arguments and a single word about that in our country there are two pension law: one for the masters of life, for officials and public servants, and another - for wage slaves. And while this system will be a pension for labor, among other things, properly named, will be meager. Manilovschina.ru which stands for science.
- You offer to increase by at least 50% of teachers' salaries. Yes, and to increase payments to state more rapidly than planned. Whether to do the calculations on how much money to do it?
- We can finance this increase, not accumulating funds in ctabfonde. In general, ask where to get money for state employees, at oil prices of $ 100 per barrel - it is somehow unclear. There is money.
- And do not affect whether it is on inflation?
- It is necessary to take into account the consumption pattern of poor public sector employees. What they would spend the money? For basic necessities, especially not the most expensive and therefore most likely represented by our businesses. This is a consumer activity, is to stimulate domestic production. More production, more competition, respectively, less than inflation. "Good" uncles want to convince people that this government, everything is possible and is wanted. Possible, and to feed the wolf and a sheep to keep. In fact, they feed the illusion that this government represents the interests of society as a whole and all the problems of our society in the wrong approach to transfer of natural assets in some other, rather than financial assets. - How do you think will listen to the advice of a BCF? Is there a "second wind" chance of being realized?
- Yes, the demand for independent analysts is low, but something still is heard. Another thing is that the quality of performance is sometimes (as was the case with the tax amnesty, and especially with the monetization of benefits), which is annoying - it would be better not to bother. But always hoping for the best, and I am now convinced that the implementation of the program - it's just a matter of time. What self-adoration! They suggested that the analyst! Well, wow! And that analyzed? Apparently, the authors of the proposed program are tired of their "independence" and lack of money and are out to get on prokorm to those in power. Here then is fastened dialogue: the creators of the program screaming that they did a great job, all reviewed and offer to implement their program. And the authorities they were told that they have a program that they may not contain a large mass of the drafters of the programs. Here the authors of "second wind" are taken as criticism of existing programs and say that your program is not realistic, you are wrong, and graphics. And those who are at the helm and do not pay attention to these critics, because, in reality, any programs they implement and are not collected. And the true motives of authors newly-fledged program to understand. Here Nikolayev starts to blackmail them by threatening to make its program publicity.
We will send the program to all public authorities, to whom it may be interesting, we will distribute to the media and among the professional community.
We ought to send back in the Sports Lottery. There they will read. But it will not sell. Opportunities there.
Ivan Tevrizsky
16.11. 2007
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий