The famous Russian scientist George Malinetskii, describing the state of the Russian economy, said: “Now we’ve already lost. We must think about the future.” Along with the scandalous characteristics of the situation in his country liberal opponent, the banker German Gref said at the Gaidar forum (“country-downshifter”, “technological enslavement of the West”, etc.), this demonstrates the seriousness of the situation. This is also evidenced by the opinion of Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev that the cause of the difficulties in the Russian economy are not so much the drop in oil prices as “exhaustion of the model of economic growth of 2000-ies”.
Read more: http://news.tut.by/economics/516808.html
But this is Russia, where, first, there is a steady flow in the economy of natural resource rents (prices fell, began to receive less, but still a lot). And, secondly, there are significant savings. Has less money in reserve funds of the state increased savings for corporate accounts. In 2015 amid falling energy prices and sanctions on Bank deposits of individuals increased by 25 percent (in the fall of the standard of living of the population), while corporate accounts increased by 20 percent. Today in the accounts of Russian companies about $ 200 billion. And Russia’s state debt with 733 billion in 2014, dropped to 516 billion dollars in the middle of this year.
For Belarus, the economic situation looks a lot worse. The current account deficit, increasing foreign debt, the lack of appropriate reserves, the state (current expenditures financed by foreign loans, and Russian oil and gas make up), weight (50%) of loss-making enterprises with growing the total amount of losses, negative overall savings in the economy, the insignificance of the demand, balances on accounts of enterprises, falling competitiveness of export products. The growing external debt and costs, the growth of unemployment and emigration of qualified personnel. All this forms a picture of our crisis, against which stupor in the government, its inability to produce even the current anti-crisis program is just obscene.
So it hardly seems reasonable is often expressed in the liberal press are of the opinion that the crisis in Russia as the funnel, able to tighten and the economy of Belarus. It seems that the Belarusian economy will collapse if current trends continue, much earlier Russian. And considering that it is negligibly small in comparison with the Russian, Russia won’t even feel it. The only consequence of the difficulties in the Russian economy for Belarus can only be the restriction of Russian oil and gas support. That while to a small extent, already takes place today. And that, of course, accelerates for negative processes in our economy.
Hardly is reasonable also Medvedev said that the reason for the difficulties in the Russian economy is “exhausted model of economic growth of 2000-ies”. Against this thesis works almost simultaneous entry into the crisis of the economies of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Although economic models differ greatly. Apparently, the main factors of the crisis economies in the former Soviet Union are still the exhaustion of the Soviet legacy and the completion of the integration of post-Soviet economies in the world.
It is hardly correct to speak of Russian “model of economic growth of 2000-ies”. Since this “model” was based only on high oil prices, the development in the economy of the Soviet legacy and hopes for the action of the “invisible hand of the market”. And market world. If 1998 was a simple looting of the country, the distribution and redistribution of property, after 1998, began her economic development. Moreover, the development in the structure of the economy and on the technical basis of the Soviet legacy.
Foreign capital in the real sector of the country never came. Hope that Russian companies will be able to fit in the global chain of added value, is not justified. But foreign capital gradually mastered the post-Soviet space as a market. (“Screwdriver technology” — part of the trading strategy of the donor, but not a factor in the development of the country. Except that subsidiary. The Latin American experience proves it.)
The basis of economic strategy of Russia in 2000-ies was the stimulation of domestic demand through investing into the economy of the natural resource rents. (Part — and through corruption). On this basis, Russia has managed not only to raise the standard of living of the population, but also to rebuild the financial sector and trade, but the real sector, both industry and agriculture on the old Soviet technical base, competition to import lost outright.
Today produced in the old Soviet technical products uncompetitive not only in the world, but also in the domestic markets of post-Soviet countries. And competitors, and from the West and from the East, our markets mastered well enough. Serious niches to large-scale investment in the markets of post-Soviet countries anymore.
Liberal ideas underlying the Russian “model of development 2000 years” has led to the fact that this “model” is not just exhausted. She simply collapsed, forming a strategic dead end for the country’s development. Outstanding was not one of the declared goals. The new owners proved to be effective. The accumulation of capital in trade and the financial sector did not become a source of investment in the modernization and development of the real sector. The active involvement of foreign capital has led not only to the dominance of imports, but also to attempts to dictate to the country its policies. (Example — sanctions.) The economic basis for raising living standards of the population and development of the country and not created.
In Belarus, the situation was even worse. Our successes in the 2000 ies was based solely on the better-preserved the Soviet legacy (it was not the stage of disintegration due to the partition and division of property) and access to the Russian domestic market, where the Kremlin actively stimulate domestic demand. However, the ossification of the “Belarusian model”, lack of savings and investment in the modernization of the real sector led to similar Russian results: the exhaustion of the Soviet legacy and a progressive loss of competitiveness of our products. One important and sad exception of Belarus: we have no savings (they are eaten), is not such as in Russia, the inflow of natural resource rents, and therefore nothing to maintain the standard of living of the population, nor to Finance the modernization of the economy.
The realization that the country’s economic policies failed, already quite common in our society. But it has not yet come to understand that over the years, when the country consumed more than it earned, have to pay. And pay dearly.
Today our country is at a fork of paths. Of course, you can continue to live in the “Belarusian model”. Surviving on bread and butter from loan to loan. But without a substantial reduction in the level of consumption (including consumption of the population) today it is impossible: all potential lenders require to “live within our means.” And what decide loans: during the period 2008-2015 all loans received 8-10 billion, another 2-3 billion of foreign investment, and public debt increased by almost $ 30 billion. Will, says Alexander Lukashenko, “telepatsya” — the figure will only increase.
For a long time so continue still may not have to sacrifice wages, jobs and social programs. Including pensions, health care and education. The only advantage in favor of the “Belarusian model” sliding in “Honduras” we’ll gradually. But no alternative. Spending scarce resources are not searching to break the deadlock, and to slide slower.
And supporters of this choice enough. It and seniors (“Give to live!”), and some of the youth-oriented emigration, and those who do not believe in the possibility of overcoming the crisis (“Not with our people, not our bosses!”). In fact, in Honduras people live. Even millionaires there are. However, a little bit. So for myself and many in the “Belarusian model” of the threat does not see. Adapted.
In addition, the part of our bureaucratic nomenclature, realizing the prospects of the collapse of the country, frantic lobbying for nomenklatura privatization. To provide at least a favorite. And to make it more convenient in the framework of the “Belarusian model”. While they are at the office.
Another way is to try to get on the path of development. Examples of countries left on the path, quite a lot. And in conditions much worse than we have today. It — Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and China. But, as formulated Malinetskii, you need a clear understanding of the goals, where we want to go, and are super. Such super-human efforts made at the time South Korea, where modernization was carried out thanks to the political will of the government, hard decisions at the state level to the extent that 40% of GDP was invested in the development of new technologies.
It’s an investment. But as said Sigmar Gabriel, head of the Social democratic party of Germany: “the Level of investment is always a measure of how strongly a country believes in its future and how she was ready to solve the problem.” And judging by the fact that investments we did not even cover depreciation nezasluzhenno, our government and the future of the country does not believe, and problems to solve are not ready. Yes, and while public investment — that is investment, it is a failure. At the hearing — cement, wood processing, milk, tube. And the list goes on.
It is not enough to draw a goal. For the all-Belarusian Assembly we regularly draw. Even though a caricature, the NSSD-2030 drew. It is important that these goals were achievable. This is the result, not “the list”, and calculations. Which we, apparently, to make no one.
In the US, 50 think tanks analyze and predict the future. George Malinetskii wrote to Russia: “All developed countries have their own technological forecast for the country and for the world as a whole. We have nothing like this. We have no steering, we don’t design the future. For a ship that has no port of destination, may not be a fair wind. We have the reigns, so to speak, the dictatorship of accountants…” To an even greater extent this is true for Belarus. Because the results are the same. But in Russia at least is public enough and qualified to discuss ways out of the crisis. Identifies issues and formulates solutions to them. Too late, of course, but still better than the silence that reigns in Belarus.
Yes, of trajectory development will cost the country today is very expensive. This is a politically difficult decision. Will unemployment, and budget cuts (at least 20-25%), and displacement with the change of lifestyle for many. But at least may have a chance to get out of the swamp, where we dragged the “Belarusian model”. If we are to live in it and further, you’ll get the same results, but in parts, gradually. So the choice especially and is not.
Read more: http://news.tut.by/economics/516808.html
