Will deteriorate everywhere, and in the world, and in the country, only when necessary to realize that the degradation does not mean a monotonic downward movement. That is worse tomorrow than today. The day after tomorrow is worse than tomorrow, and so on. Usually it is difficult enough gear curve. In the course of which there are local improvements. And the local slump. In general, we have from 1991 to 1990 fell. Although we have had moments about the local success. For example, in 2002, we had economic growth of almost 15%. And, apparently, everything is fine. But this is only because he was a sharp decline.
Related article: In 2011, the market will return large developersAnd today, we decline largely due to unnatural growth that we had in the second half of 2000. Which was caused purely speculative effects. And do not we have more, but in the West. But because we are very much dependent on the global economy, we are on the one hand the beneficiary of this scheme, because selling oil, we have received substantial additional income. By the way not only we, many countries in the world who live on the same scheme. The most famous Persian Gulf countries, in part, Mexico and Venezuela, partially Australia. But in general, these countries lived on the background of the average, slightly better. And, accordingly, were the countries that have had big problems, who were forced to make large debts. Today we see their effects. But the overall trend is not going away. For about 30 years since 1981 the whole world has lived under some, but, alas, compared with the previous 200 years as a model that can be called Reaganomics, although it is not entirely correct. Is rather purely on the effect of the imposition. That is, once it all started under Reagan, called it Reaganomics. Although it was invented before Reagan. And according to realize the people who are not elected Reagan.
The essence was as follows. It was necessary to give some impetus to the Western economy. In the 70 years of acute crisis, which happened in the world, the USSR, he started in the 60 years in the U.S. and in Europe a little later - in 1971, but the notional point is defaulted U.S. in 1971 when they refused to exchange dollars for gold. Abandoned the gold standard. And this acute crisis has raised the question of who whom.
In this case, let's not talk right now about ideology, it is better, worse, from an economic perspective the system was completely symmetrical. Two systems, each of which can be sustained only on the background of growth. And they have encountered. It was not the first crisis of this type. Previous was 30 years, and he was in the late 19 early 20 th century. Simply, he was interrupted by World War I and its aftermath. So, as a result of this crisis had to come up with, roughly speaking, how to start a new wave of no growth. Without expanding markets. This model, which came up in the West and not invented in the USSR, why the Soviet Union and lost, while the West won, was a very simple thing. If we can not increase the number of consumers, let us, we will increase the burden on each consumer.
What you need to do? To do this, to give people money. In the credit, of course. And there was a very powerful system of credit demand. Demand for consumer and mortgage, respectively. They formally separated in reality both have costs in the household, this artificial division it is for this reason, for example, immediately before the crisis, much of the increase in consumer demand have been fueled by mortgage refinancing. Real Estate. So, this model will work. But it required fundamental changes in the credit approach. The bank is interested to give credit. It's his business, his money. And in the 70 years after all the financial markets were not nearly as developed as today. Therefore, all who could issue a credit - loans received. Question - how to increase lending. For this we need to change the model, a system of relationships between banks and the public. Relatively speaking, this change has occurred by some of the offer public. The banking system appealed to citizens: children, let us give you access to additional loans while you're at them we have also something to buy yourself. What citizens say: but we can not take additional credits, we can not get them back, we have no income. What they say: guys, you may be, the income will appear when you start to fly, will increase revenues. Citizens say: let us, so first we will increase revenues, and then we'll take the credit. And then they say: guys, but here it is very interesting, do not need to return these loans. - How so? - A very simple, you just shut their income servicing these debts. Roughly speaking, some percentage. A body of loan you'll return from loan, which we will give you. Was changed credit model. Rather than give people money so that they are out of current income can fully recover and the credit and interest shifted to a model in which the current income citizens should be, and corporations of the state only to return to service these loans, and repayment of the loan made by the body refinancing.
From the viewpoint of classical economics is a pyramid. MMM. That is, you return money to depositors of the old is due to the influx of new investors. In this case, you have a flow of emissions is provided. De facto. And it is precisely for this reason that this model has a time-limited nature. You have to at some point the current income can no longer provide even the loan servicing fees. And once that happens, you have two options. First - write off, the second - by hyperinflation devalue everything. And debt, and interest and profits, just burn it all. Here are two options that we wait for today. Due to what it lasted 30 years. In general, as we know from the SCG, the MMM usually lasts so long. Due to the fact that the U.S. was a very high cost of credit in 1981 was 19% discount rate. They reduced it, they reduced the cost of credit. This allowed the scheme significantly extend nearly 30 years. In 2008, the cost of credit was zero. Not the cost of credit, the discount rate. The cost of credit has stopped falling, that is, it became impossible to refinance loans from 2004-2005. For this reason, I always say that if a person tries to explain that he was an outstanding expert on the crisis, let him show his works written before 2004. We have written his book in 2003. Where this whole scheme has been described. So, this is absolutely objective reason. I draw your attention to this scheme were invented for a specific task. Elimination of the USSR. Actually, the two teams. One must win. Won. Wonderful.
And then what?
And now the world was actually in the same situation in which the 70-ies and 30-ies. Only then could expand due to the destruction of competitors. In the 30 years the competition was a lot, as many as five. In the 70 years it was two. And today there are none at all. That is, it means that the model of economic development, to which we are accustomed to, which lasted 200 years, it ended. 250. And do not worry about it. In human history there were many such moments. Only in the last 2,000 years can be called at least two. This is the 4 th, 6 th century, when the late antique model was replaced by feudalism, and the second - 16-17 century. When was replaced by feudal capitalist. Note that 1917 was a change in the socio-political model, but not economic. Because the model of economic development, scientific and technical progress in the Soviet Union did not change.
The Soviet Union acted in the world as a state corporation. Roughly speaking, there are some «General Motors», Behold, it was the Soviet Union, but there was a combination of public and corporate effects, respectively. Imagine that the «General Motors» buys himself some small state. Plus, this is how the company operates. And not as a state.
In the Soviet Union was very interesting. Socialism was that it was a state in which every citizen, upon the fact of his birthday was a shareholder. And there was a very complex system of redistribution of shares and dividends. Career growth is actually meant bonuses and an increase in your personal equity share. And there was a very complex system of inheritance. That is, these stocks could not be entirely inherited. The bonus part was much larger than the formal stock share. It can not be inherited. Strictly speaking, all of our Revolution of the late 80's, early 90's was made by the nomenclature and trade to address two major problems for her. The first problem - how to pass on the legacy of the bonus. Roughly speaking, I am director of a department store, I get the big bonuses of his job, but pass them by inheritance to the son or daughter can not. Because when I'm gone, my place someone else will appoint a chief. And I want it to be mine.
That was the problem first. A second problem was that any officer, any chief of nomenclature had a feeling of wild irritation that someone out there, no matter who the Party Control Committee, Communist Party, the People's Control Committee, or someone else pointed out to him that he does not their duties. In relation to some people. It was the same, why should I ... I'm such a big head, but these freaks out there running around, why I should in principle take into account their positions, their views. I'm on the office, and they who? That was two problems. And they were both successfully resolved. So when I hear today that our officials do not work, they do not owe anything to anyone. Our state today is a state that nothing should society. And to change this situation, we had a tremendous effort and this is, strictly speaking, the main problem of our policies. The fact that we have no politics. We are fighting for positions, for entrance to the old system of nomenclature for positions that are already available in some form or other transfer by inheritance. Not directly, but in many ways. But social responsibility is not none at all. Roughly speaking, for which he fought, and this responsibility is imputed to have to go through extremely difficult times.
People often ask me: I state employees, teachers, the winner. Me-it would be? And others write: I'll be at this time to live.
I can tell you how you live. Do you have a salary of 12 thousand per month, 15 to you in a moment threw out the bill for housing 20000. You say: I can not pay. Housing will tell you: a no interest to us, we want to get this apartment 20,000. Do not want to - go to other. This is your problem. But we want to get this apartment is 20 thousand. Next, he respectively refers to the state. The state, as well as, I'm doing something sensible, kind, ever.
The state says: Yes, yes, of course, we'll need. Because according to our law, we immediately took before the next elections, people can not pay for more housing some proportion of their salary, we'll have to compensate. Go and write a statement. The teacher would come to write a statement. Ask me to compensate. Next he will say: no money in the budget. We'll, of course, compensate, but then. Next to some point come to court and the artists say: And we have eviction or more of the best, you have three children, we have them we select you because you tell them you can not provide an adequate standard of living. As for us now that are trying to implement a juvenile justice. It will select the children. At the same time very juvenile justice: Yeah, here we give this baby in the family, that this, here's this here in this one. And from the other budget items, we will receive the money that we with these families will be cut. And getting paid for it. From the standpoint of human trafficking should just hang it directly on the premises. But this is business. I repeat, there is no liability.
And where does the responsibility? Where it can take, with all the crisis and decadence of the model that has arisen is that we think of European civilization?
That the Greeks strike, strike the Spaniards. Portuguese. What are they protesting? They say: we do not want ... Let's not get into the details, someone pension age who have social, does not matter. They say, roughly speaking, the following: we want to get a hundred rubles a month, which we are promised by law. They say: guys, this is our budget. To 80 rubles each is, and not a hundred rubles. You can go on strike, can not go on strike. No money. Roughly the same, suggesting state our teacher. Teacher says: "Well you have to pay me, so I paid the utilities. Otherwise, I will select the children. The state says: Well we have no money, when, respectively, will, we'll give you utilities to pay, however, you have to pay a fine not understand how, but the degree we do not compensate. Well kids, what to do, then you have no money to have kids. Here you have a child taken away. We can not do anything, because by law, this decision is made, you have children you can not back away and almost impossible. Here is a picture. But in fact, slightly different scheme for Europe. The scheme is as follows. People were sitting, and lived poorly, but honestly. I've already talked about it. They proposed a scheme: guys, we give you money in the loan, you have to buy. In this case, do not worry, no need to return the loans, we give you ...
And suddenly they say: guys, you know, as more the cost of credit does not fall, and financial risks have increased, we give you more credit is not given. New. How so, how can we return the old ones? And the old will have to return because it is the law. But sorry, guys, the offer was different. If you give up your part to refinance the loans, so they have a right old loans are not repaid. Or they say: great, great, you ask us to change the conditions, well, let's, we do restrukturiruem. The first 20 years did not pay, then who will survive, people still have elderly, will pay, restructure another 300 years. Banks say: no, it's no good, then we all went bankrupt. Guys, what you want. You are 30 years of enormous profits, the share of financial sector profits in the corporation over the past 50 years has grown by 5 times, from 10% to 50. And you what you want to just keep on? It does not happen. A similar situation in our country. If the State has established a system, no matter why and how, in which society can not exist, it will inevitably cause a social explosion. Here's a wonderful story was. February 1917, the existence of a sufficiently well-founded hypothesis that all of the February Revolution of 1917 occurred here because of what. The Police Department has decided to increase his salary, he turned to the Emperor, said: Sire, we ought to add. At that absolutely stunned the Emperor said: you sdureli that if the war goes. You can not do. What the police department said: ah well, we'll arrange you. And using it is now customary to say operational methods, delayed grain trains in the hope that they will start riots, they suppress them and to celebrate, the sovereign will add them to pay. As a result, riots broke out, the first thing that happened - the people hung on lampposts all policemen. After which the Police Department simply does not have the tools to do something with these disorders. Next there was the February Revolution. So, the problem is as follows. For 30 years, lined up a model of social control through the excess money. Corporate governance through the excess money.
A geopolitical system, which lined up even earlier in 1944 through the sale of excess U.S. demand around the world. And today we see that Europe has lived on sales in the U.S., Japan, China, we will not even talk. China without U.S. demand does not exist as a modern economic power. At this point, suddenly it becomes clear that demand is falling, the excess money is already there, on the contrary, money is not enough. This means a radical change in the fundamental model of world governance. Management - do not mean in the sense of conspiracy, but you know, as someone who still worked a little real control, I can say that there is no world government does not control. Because any control in a situation where control structures, superstructure, anyone who manages more than three, the head can no longer know what is happening underneath. Need to build an ideological and economic system model, which is just like working independently on the feedback effects. It can only be a little touch up. Managerial levels in the country with a dozen. And what can we say ...
Simply return signal is not. He is very much distorted. How to perfect this system is not built. For example, I can say that in the 30-40's highest office in the USSR was the instructor of the Central Committee. Why? - Because that is the instructor of the Central Committee formed the picture of the world, that was Stalin. He was a filter. Here it will pass, but it will not work. The likelihood that Stalin learned something, bypassing the filter, it existed, but was close to zero.