Liberal economic theory in France. The theory of J.B. Say on the three factors of production. "Say's Law". Liberal market economic model in its essence The main provisions of his theory

The concept and essence of economic liberalism

Definition 1

Liberalism is a special socio-political movement based on the inviolability of human rights and freedoms. They first started talking about it during the Enlightenment; later, the ideas of liberalism received their active development in the works of many scientists and social and political figures.

Over time, the concept of liberalism was divided into a number of movements (Figure 1), one of which was economic liberalism.

Note 1

Economic liberalism is an integral part of classical liberalism, based on the inviolability of private property, freedom of trade and entrepreneurship. Its essence lies in the fact that the economy, or more correctly, its laws, act like the laws of nature, regardless of human activities.

This direction of economic thought actively advocates individual rights not only to property, but also to freedom of contract. Its motto is “free private enterprise.”

The main task of the state is not to impede the development of initiatives and entrepreneurship of economic entities. Institutions of state power should not encroach on economic freedoms; on the contrary, they should support those who have taken on the risk and responsibility of entrepreneurship.

Economic liberalism of A. Smith

Adam Smith made a significant contribution to the development of economic liberalism; in fact, he became one of the founders of this movement. As the basic principles of economic liberalism, he proclaimed:

• the need for personal interest of individuals for economic development;
• self-regulation of the market and limiting the role of the state in it;
• the presence of a developed institution of private property as the basis of a system of natural freedom.

In his writings, A. Smith said that the laws of the market are best able to influence the economy in cases where private interests are above public ones. In other words, the interests of society as a whole should be considered as the sum of the interests of its individual members (individuals).

The welfare of society is based on a system based on the natural freedom of individuals, the market and competition. In conditions of free competition, the source of social order, growth and development of the economy and public good are self-interested individuals. Thus, individualism promotes order and prosperity rather than chaos and anarchy.

A. Smith has repeatedly said that the income of workers is directly dependent on the level of national wealth of the country. He called money “the great wheel of circulation.”

The central role in the works of A. Smith is given to labor as the main source of wealth. The wealth of a society depends on two factors:

• the share of the population that is engaged in production work;
• direct labor productivity.

He paid special attention to exchange value. The source of value creation was labor. The market itself is capable of establishing natural prices, which are nothing more than the monetary expression of exchange value.

According to the views of A. Smith, in conditions of ensuring freedom of competition, market prices correspond to natural prices. The capitalist economy itself can be in one of three states: stagnation, decline or growth.

Among other things, A. Smith advocated minimizing government intervention in the economy and the market mechanism. He openly spoke about the fact that government regulation, as well as the very existence of monopolies in the market, harms the economy. According to his views, the government should not interfere with the emergence of new institutions, and economic growth itself should be promoted quietly. This is precisely the key to competently meeting the needs of society.

Note 2

Thus, the ideas of A. Smith’s economic liberalism were reduced to minimal government intervention in market self-regulation, which should be carried out through freely developing prices based on the interaction of supply and demand mechanisms.

Basic postulates of the concept of economic liberalism

The main postulates (ideas) of the concept of economic liberalism as a separate ideological socio-political and philosophical movement can be reduced to two components (Figure 2). Let's look at them in more detail.

Figure 2. Basic postulates of the concept of economic liberalism. Author24 - online exchange of student works

The concept of “economic man” is based on the postulate that each individual is by nature selfish and rational. Each person, striving to satisfy personal needs and personal enrichment, ultimately acts in the interests of society as a whole, often without even suspecting it.

Freedom and development of entrepreneurship helps to maximize economic growth, since profit underlies the savings necessary for the state and society for further development and prosperity.

The second fundamental postulate of the concept of economic liberalism is the so-called “invisible hand” principle. Otherwise, it is usually called the principle of “natural freedom” or “spontaneous order”. Its essence boils down to the need to ensure freedom of entrepreneurship, on the one hand, and non-interference by the state in the functioning of market mechanisms, on the other.

A certain role is given to the ideology of free trade and the principle known in science as “laissez faire” (non-interference)

Note 3

Among other things, supporters of the concept of economic liberalism adhere to the position that social justice and political freedom are inseparable from economic freedom.

Thus, the ideas of economic liberalism invariably come down to market freedom and minimizing government intervention in the country's economy. The concept of economic liberalism itself advocates for ensuring freedom of enterprise, and it is based on freedom of private property and the right to inheritance.

Several years ago, the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion conducted a survey of the population, the main question of which was: “What is liberalism, and who is a liberal?” Most of the participants were confused by this question. 56% could not give a comprehensive answer. The survey was conducted in 2012; most likely, today the situation is unlikely to have changed for the better. Therefore, now in this article we will briefly consider the concept of liberalism and all its main aspects for the education of the Russian audience.

In contact with

About the concept

There are several definitions that describe the concept of this ideology. Liberalism is:

• political movement or ideology that unites fans of democracy and parliamentarism;
• a worldview that is characteristic of industrialists who defend their rights of a political nature, as well as entrepreneurial freedom;
• a theory incorporating philosophical and political ideas that appeared in Western Europe in the 18th century;
• the first meaning of the concept was freethinking;
• tolerance and tolerance of unacceptable behavior.

All these definitions can be safely attributed to liberalism, but the main thing is that this term denotes an ideology that affects the structure and states. WITH In Latin, liberalism is translated as freedom. Are all the functions and aspects of this movement really built on freedom?

Freedom or restriction

The liberal movement includes such key concepts as public good, individual freedom and equality of people within the framework of policy and . What liberal values ​​does this ideology promote?

1. The common good. If the state protects the rights and freedom of the individual, and also protects the people from various threats and monitors compliance with the laws, then such a structure of society can be called reasonable.
2. Equality. Many people shout that all people are equal, although it is obvious that this is absolutely not the case. We differ from each other in various aspects: intelligence, social status, physical characteristics, nationality, and so on. But liberals mean equality of human opportunity. If a person wants to achieve something in life, no one has the right to interfere with this on the basis of race, social status or other factors . The principle is that if you put in the effort, you will achieve more.
3. Natural rights. British thinkers Locke and Hobbes came up with the idea that a person has three rights from birth: to life, to property and to happiness. It will not be difficult for many to interpret this: no one has the right to take a person’s life (only the state for certain offenses), property is considered as a personal right to own something, and the right to happiness is that same freedom of choice.

Important! What is liberalization? There is also a concept that means the expansion of civil liberties and rights within the framework of economic, political, cultural and social life, and this is also a process when the economy gets rid of the influence of the state.

Principles of liberal ideology:

• there is nothing more valuable than human life;
• all people in this world are equal;
• everyone has their inalienable rights;
• the individual and his needs are more valuable than society as a whole;
• the state arises by common consent;
• people form laws and state values ​​independently;
• the state is responsible to the individual, and the individual, in turn, is responsible to the state;
• power must be divided, the principle of organizing life in the state on the basis of the constitution;
• only in fair elections can a government be elected;
• humanistic ideals.

These principles of liberalism formulated in the 18th century English philosophers and thinkers. Many of them never came to fruition. Most of them are similar to the utopia that humanity so passionately strives for, but cannot achieve.

Important! Liberal ideology could be a lifeline for many countries, but there will always be some pitfalls that hinder development.

Founders of the ideology

What is liberalism? At that time, each thinker understood it in his own way. This ideology absorbed completely different ideas and opinions of thinkers of that time.

It is clear that some of the concepts may contradict each other, but the essence remains the same.

The founders of liberalism English scientists J. Locke and T. Hobbes (18th century) can be considered, along with the French writer of the Enlightenment era Charles Montesquieu, who was the first to think and express his opinion about human freedom in all spheres of his activity.

Locke gave birth to legal liberalism and stated that only in a society in which all citizens are free can there be stability.

The original theory of liberalism

The followers of classical liberalism gave greater preference and paid more attention to the “individual freedom” of man. The concept of this concept is expressed in the fact that the individual should not submit to either society or social orders. Independence and equality- these are the main stages on which the entire liberal ideology stood. The word “freedom” then meant the absence of various prohibitions, limits or vetoes on the implementation of actions by an individual, taking into account the generally accepted rules and laws of the state. That is, that freedom that would not go against established dogmas.

As the founders of the liberal movement believed, the government should guarantee equality between all its citizens, but people had to take care of their financial situation and status on their own. Limiting the scope of government power was what liberalism in turn tried to achieve. According to theory, the only thing the state had to provide for its citizens was security and order protection. That is, the liberals tried to influence the reduction of all its functions to a minimum. The existence of society and power could only be subject to their general subordination to laws within the state.

The fact that classical liberalism would still exist became clear when a terrible economic crisis arose in the United States in 1929. Its consequences were tens of thousands of bankrupt banks, the death of many people from hunger and other horrors of the economic decline of the state.

Economic liberalism

The main concept of this movement was the idea of ​​equality between economic laws and natural ones. Government interference in these laws was prohibited. Adam Smith is the founder of this movement and its basic principles:

• self-interest is needed to spur economic development;
• government regulation and the existence of monopolies harm the economy;
• economic growth must be promoted quietly. That is, the government should not interfere in the process of the emergence of new institutions. Businesses and suppliers operating in the interests of profit and within the market system are quietly guided by the "invisible hand." All this is the key to competently meeting the needs of society.

Neoliberalism

This direction was formed in the 19th century and implies a new trend in, which is the complete non-interference of the government in trade relations between its subjects.

The main principles of neoliberalism are constitutionalism and equality between all members of society in the country.

Signs of this trend: the government should promote self-regulation of the economy in the market, and the process of financial redistribution should primarily take into account the low-income segments of the population.

Neoliberalism is not against government regulation economics, while classical liberalism denies this. But the regulatory process should include only the free market and the competitiveness of subjects to ensure economic growth along with social justice. The main idea of ​​neoliberalism – support for foreign trade policy and internal trade to increase the gross income of the state, that is, protectionism.

All political concepts and philosophical movements have their own characteristics, and neoliberalism is no exception:

• the need for government intervention in the economy. The market must be protected from the possible emergence of monopolies, and a competitive environment and freedom ensured;
• protection of principles and justice. All citizens must be involved in political processes to maintain the necessary democratic “weather”;
• government should maintain existence various economic programs, associated with financial support for social groups with low incomes.

Briefly about liberalism

Why is the concept of liberalism distorted in Russia?

Conclusion

Now the question is: “What is liberalism?” will no longer cause dissonance among respondents. After all, the understanding of freedom and equality is simply presented under other terms, which have their own principles and concepts that affect different spheres of the state structure, but remain unchanged in one thing - only then will the state prosper when it ceases to limit its citizens in many ways.

Friedrich List. National system of political economy

1. The liberal school describes the economy of individual individuals or economic entities, the laws of which are artificially extended to the state and humanity

"Quesnay, who first conceived the idea of ​​universal free trade, expanded the scope of his research to all humanity, without having an idea of ​​​​a separate nation. The title of his work is: “Physiocratie, ou le gouvernement le plus avantageux au genre humain” (Physiocracy or the most advanced control of the human race), he would like “ merchants of all nations formed one trading republic" Obviously, Quesnay had in mind cosmopolitan economy, i.e. that science which teaches how the whole human race can secure its welfare, as opposed to political economy, or that science which confines itself to the study of how a given nation... achieves prosperity, civilization and power" p. 171

The same goes for Adam Smith. "He gave the following title to his work: “The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” that is, of all nations, of the entire human race. He speaks of various systems of political economy in a special part of his work, with the sole and exclusive purpose of presenting their complete insignificance and to prove that political or national economy must give way to world economy" p. 172

J.B. Say, a student of Smith, wrote: “The principles which bear upon the interests of a whole nation in particular, and in its relation to other nations, form state economy(l'economie publique), political Economy finally considers the interests of all nations, all of humanity together"(Economie politique pratique, vol. 6, p. 288). pp. 172-173

"Adam Smith expounded essentially the same doctrine as Quesnay and his disciples. For example, in an article in the Revue methodique he wrote: “The well-being of individuals depends on the well-being of the entire human race”" p. 173

“The first of the North American luminaries of free trade as Adam Smith understands it, Oma Cooper, president of the Columbia College, calls the nation “a grammatical invention caused by the need to avoid paraphrases, a non-entity that has no no real meaning and only dreamed of by politicians” p. 173-174

Thomas Cooper (a follower of the liberal school) in his essay “Lectures on Political Economy”, directed against the American protection system, wrote: “Political economy is almost the same as the private economy of all individuals; politics does not constitute any essential feature of political economy; it would be absurd to think that society is something completely different from the individuals of whom it consists... Social wealth is nothing more than the accumulated wealth of individuals..." p. 213

“In essence, the theory of Adam Smith is nothing more than the totality of the private economies of all individuals of a country or of all humanity, what it would be if there were no separate states, no nations, no national interests, no special government systems and cultures , no wars, no national aspirations; this is nothing more than a theory of values, an office or merchant theory, and not a doctrine of how to motivate, increase, support and ensure the development of the productive forces of a nation in order to increase its civilization, prosperity, power, stability and independence" p. 380-381

2. Ignoring by the liberal school the role of state institutions in economic development and the need for the comprehensive development of the country’s productive forces

“Adam Smith did not attach any importance to the importance of state and public institutions in the well-being of society. Adam Smith understood so little in general the essence of these institutions that he nowhere recognizes the productive significance of the intellectual labor of those who are in charge of the court and administration, in whose hands is education and religious upbringing who advances science, works in the field of arts, etc. His research was limited to those human activities the result of which are material values.Concerning this activity, he even admits that its production depends on the dexterity and expediency with which it is applied, but in In his investigations into the causes of this dexterity and expediency, he does not go further than the division of labor and explains the latter solely by exchange, the increase in material wealth and the expansion of markets. Then his teaching plunges deeper and deeper into materialism, particularism and individualism. If he pursued the idea of ​​“productive power ”, without giving preference to the idea of ​​“value and exchange value,” then he would necessarily come to the conviction that in order to clarify economic phenomena, an independent theory of productive forces must stand next to the theory of values. He deviated so much from the true path that he began to explain the moral or spiritual forces (driving the development of society) from purely material relations, and this is the reason for all the absurdities and contradictions with which, as we will show, his school still suffers..." pp. 187-188

"According to Say, Smith's doctrine is that science which shows how wealth or exchange values ​​are produced, distributed and consumed. Obviously, it is not the science which teaches how the productive forces are awakened and maintained, and how they are suppressed and destroyed. McCulloch rightly calls it the science of value, and the latest English writers call it the science of exchange." 188

According to the liberal school, teachers, doctors, scientists, musicians are not producers, because do not create exchange values ​​- this is a profound delusion. With. 192-193

“Those who raise pigs or make balalaikas and pills are, of course, productive, but incomparably more productive are educators of youth and teachers of adults, virtuoso musicians, judges and administrators. The former produce exchange values, the latter create productive forces. Reducing human activity to the creation of exchange values ​​leads to narrow and false views" p. 193-194.

“The well-being of a nation is determined not by the amount of wealth, i.e. exchange values, as Say thinks, but by the degree of development of the productive forces. Even if laws and government institutions do not directly produce values, then they create productive forces, and Say is mistaken when he claims that nations enrich themselves under every form of government, and that laws cannot create wealth." p. 194

“Thus, the liberal school, which at first shunned the problem of the nation and national interests, goes so far as to completely deny even the existence of both and leaves it to the individuals themselves to take care of their own defense...

If you follow these principles, then all long-term tasks will be abandoned, society will think only about the current affairs of each person, without thinking about the future" p. 214

“Another sophism of the school: the sum of individual values ​​is equal to the sum of national wealth. In fact, the main task of a nation is to multiply the sum of its productive forces, and it is not equal to the sum of the productive forces of all individuals” p. 219

“The liberal school does not explain why some nations achieved unprecedented prosperity while others fell into decline; it considers only individuals, not nations.” p. 219

"The school makes no distinction between more developed and less developed countries, and everywhere wants to eliminate the interference of state power. In fact, if we proceed from this doctrine, then savage peoples should be the most productive and richest peoples of the globe, because nowhere is an individual person given more to himself and nowhere does he feel so little interference from state power as in this (wild) state” p. 221

“This complete abolition of the nation and state power, this elevation of individuality to the role of the primary source of all creative power looks plausible only because he made the main subject of study not the productive force of society, but the product, material wealth, or rather, only the value that objects have at exchange... It was necessary to reduce national economy to a simple theory of values, asserting that only individuals create values ​​and that the state, unable to create values, must limit its activities... From this point of view, the essence of political economy is expressed as follows: wealth is possession exchange values" p. 380

"This system views everything from the point of view of the merchant... It leaves the development of productive forces to chance, nature and the Lord God; the state alone should not do anything for this... It understands perfectly well in detail the benefits of the division of labor, but does not pay attention on the results of division on a national scale... What will become of a nation in the future is completely indifferent to it, as long as individuals acquire exchange values... In a word, this is, in the most direct and strict sense of the word, a mercantile system, and it is not clear how could give this name to Colbert's system, which in its essence was a system of protectionism - a system of protecting industry..." p. 381-382

3. The liberal school ignores the importance of industrial development of the country

“The liberal school does not notice that between purely agricultural states and agricultural-industrial states there is an even greater difference than between pastoral and agricultural peoples. In purely agricultural states, arbitrariness and slavery, superstition and ignorance, lack of culture, lack of communications, poverty and political powerlessness" p. 191

“The liberal school does not notice that with the emergence of industry in an agricultural state, industry appears and receives useful application a mass of intellectual, physical, natural and technical forces (the latter the school calls capital), which have not yet acted and, without the emergence of their own industry, would never have begun to act; the school imagines that with the planting of industry these forces are taken away from agriculture and transferred to industry, whereas for the most part this is a completely new force that is not taken away from agriculture, but, on the contrary, helps its broader development” p. 198

The thesis of the liberal school about the prosperity of agricultural nations is erroneous (this shows complete ignorance of the essence of socio-economic relations). Without industrial development, a nation will never achieve success in increasing prosperity, as well as in moral, intellectual, social and political development. 228

“Adam Smith, indeed, expressed here one of those paradoxical positions that he, according to the remark of his biographer Dudald Stuart, loved so much, namely, he argued that agriculture requires more art than industry. Without stopping to study the fact that requires more art, watchmaking, or farming, we will limit ourselves to just noting that all occupations in agriculture are of the same kind, while industry presents infinite variety." 247

4. The liberal school does not recognize the division of labor and cooperation on the scale of the national economy

The thesis about the division of labor of the liberal school is incomplete. “The essence of the natural law with which the school will explain the most important phenomena in social economy is not a simple division of labor, but the division of activities (sectors) within one industry between different enterprises, and at the same time in cooperation between various types production" p. 199

Therefore, we are talking not only about the division of labor, but also about the cooperation of labor. For any factory there is a need for cooperation and cooperation with other factories. On the scale of a large country, there is a division of labor between different industries and sub-sectors. Adam Smith wrote only about the existence of a division of labor between individual factories and between individual agricultural farms. 201-202

"Adam Smith did not consider society as a whole, he was not able to connect the particulars into one harmonious whole, he neglected the nation in favor of the individual, he, concentrating on the study of the free activity of individuals, lost sight of the goals of the whole nation. He, who understood so clearly advantage of the division of labor in one factory, did not notice that the same principle applies in exactly the same way to whole provinces, to whole nations." p. 382

5. The liberal school unfairly accuses protectionism of limiting free enterprise and imposing monopolism

“If we talk about customs duties, then they do not limit the freedom of choice of entrepreneurs” p. 217

“The charge of the liberal school that tariffs are a “monopoly of local manufacturers to the detriment of consumers” is idle talk. Since, under protectionism, every person, both national and foreign, can import goods on equal terms, this means the absence of anyone’s monopoly.” With. 218

6. The liberal school denies the need for balance of trade and payments balance

“The liberal school does not recognize the word “balance of trade,” arguing that exports and imports are automatically balanced” p.220

“Although the liberal school has been disdainful of the doctrine of the balance of trade, yet the observations we have given above enable us to express here the opinion that between great and independent nations there exists something like a balance of trade; that it would be dangerous for great nations to suffer for a long time the disadvantages of this balance and that a significant and prolonged outflow of precious metals must always be accompanied by a significant disorder of the credit system and fluctuations in prices within the country" p. 327

“What we deny is that a great and independent nation, as Adam Smith asserts at the end of the chapter on this subject (balance of trade), can “annually import a much greater quantity of value in agricultural and manufactured goods than it exports.” them, as well as to admit that the amount of precious metals at its disposal may decrease from year to year... finally, that such a nation can constantly increase its loans from another nation, and along with the increase in public debt, at the same time from year to year increase your well-being per year.”

It is this position, formulated by Adam Smith and supported by his school, that we declare to be a hundred times refuted by experience, contrary to a common understanding of the nature of things, and finally, absurd..." p. 328

Examples of serious problems that arose in a particular country as a result of a huge trade deficit are France on the eve of the French Revolution (in 1786-1789), Russia in 1820-1821, North America after the Bill of Compromise p. 329

An example of distortions made by Adam Smith: “By the example of the North American colonies before their War of Independence, Adam Smith wanted to prove... his highest degree the paradoxical thesis that a country can enjoy ever-increasing prosperity by increasing its export of gold and silver... and increasing its debt to another nation. Adam Smith was careful not to point to the example of two nations that had long been independent of each other, competing with each other in navigation, trade, industry and agriculture; to prove his position, he only points out to us the relationship of the colony to its mother country. If he had waited until our days and was now writing his book, he, of course, would not have dared to refer to the example of the United States, since now this example would prove the exact opposite of what Adam Smith wanted to prove” p. 330

Another paradox of Adam Smith: "this famous writer, despite all his arguments against the existence of a country's balance of trade, nevertheless recognizes something that he calls the balance between the consumption and production of a nation, but which, on closer examination, turns out to be nothing other than our actual trade balance" p. 332-333

7. The liberal school does not notice the problems created by a free trade regime

“If one country has already achieved an advantage in the development of industry, it is absolutely impossible that among other nations, thanks to the success of agriculture, due to the “natural order of things,” as Adam Smith puts it, a diversified industrial production arose, or that those branches of production could survive which arose "naturally" under the influence of the interruptions of trade caused by war. These nations are in the same position in relation to the nation that has achieved an advantage, in which a child or youth is found who enters into a struggle with an adult...

If these nations, just beginning to create their own industries, would unswervingly follow the doctrine of free trade, then all remnants of industry would be destroyed from them, and they would fall into “eternal subordination” to foreign industrial superiority” pp. 340-341

“The liberal school does not know that with unlimited competition with a nation that has made enormous progress in industry, a nation that lags behind it, even if it already possesses all the necessary conditions for this, can never fully develop its industrial strength and achieve full strength without a system of protectionism. national independence" p. 354

A number of political problems are associated with the free foreign trade regime. One of them is the separation of coastal regions from the main territory of the country. “It is impossible to imagine a more harmful economic and political situation for a nation than when its coastal regions are more sympathetic to foreign powers than to their own country.” p. 235

An example of the erroneous arguments of free trade supporters who: convince the French of the benefits of free trade for French winemaking. Wine exports to the Netherlands in 1829 amounted to 2.5 million gallons, to England - 0.4 million (due to trade barriers). If England and France signed a free trade agreement, wine exports could reach the level of exports to Holland, that is, in proportion to population, could reach 5-6 million gallons. But French industry in this case would have been ruined under the onslaught of English industrial products of higher quality and cheaper. About 1 million people in the cities of France could be left without work and would not be able to buy wine and other agricultural products, in addition, some of the rural residents would also be left without work and would reduce their wine consumption. Wine consumption among city dwellers in France is 33 gallons per person, i.e. in general, the drop in domestic demand for wine in the country could be up to 50 million gallons compared to an increase in exports of 5-6 million gallons - the only gain that France would receive from free trade with. 291-292

“What is tested in this case on wine will be the same with meat, bread and in general food products and with raw materials: in a large country called upon to develop its own industry, industrial production creates 10-20 times greater demand for agricultural products of the temperate zone... than the most flourishing export of these same products" p. 292

8. The liberal school does not understand the mechanism of formation of the total capital of a nation (country), making no distinction between the formation of individual capital and total capital

“According to Adam Smith, a country can really, with the help of such (customs) measures, develop this or that industry faster than without these measures, and after a certain period of time this industry will produce very cheap goods in the country, even cheaper than abroad But... it does not at all follow from this that industry in its entirety or the income of society could increase thanks to such measures. The industry of a society can increase only as its capital increases, and this capital can increase only as the society's income is gradually saved. But since the immediate effect of a protective system is to reduce the public savings, it is certain that that which reduces the savings of a society cannot increase its capital faster than it would increase by itself if capital and industry were left to seek their natural destination ( A. Smith. The Wealth of Nations, book 4, chapter 2)" p. 271-272

“This argument is the main argument of the liberal school against the protection system. To this the school adds that thanks to protection measures, factories and factories can achieve a prosperous position and can equal foreign ones in cheapness of production and even surpass them; but it claims that the immediate result of these measures is a decrease in the income of society (the exchange value of those items that national industry produces annually). Thus, society allegedly weakens its ability to acquire capital, since capital forms the savings that the nation makes from its annual income; but the development of national industry is determined by as if by the number of capitals and can increase in proportion to the latter. So, society, as a result of these measures, weakens its productive forces, developing industry, which would not arise naturally if it were left to itself.

First of all, against such reasoning it should be noted that Adam Smith here takes the word capital in the same sense in which rentiers and merchants usually understand it. when maintaining your books and balances, those. in terms of the total amount of exchange values ​​compared to income obtained from these values. He forgot that in his definition of capital he himself meant by this term the intellectual and physical abilities of producers.

He erroneously asserts that the income of a nation is determined solely by the sum of its material capital; However, in his own work there is a lot of evidence that these incomes are due mainly to its intellectual and physical forces and its social and political progress (especially the complete division of labor and the association of national productive forces) and that if protective measures cause a temporary loss of material wealth, then this loss is compensated a hundredfold by productive forces and the ability to create exchange values; therefore, this loss is only the reproductive cost of the nation" pp. 272-273

"He forgets that the ability of an entire nation to extract material capital lies mainly in the art of transforming natural forces that remain unproductive into material capital and into valuable and productive instruments, and that in an agricultural nation a mass of natural forces rests unproductively and inactive, to which only industry can give life. He pays no attention to the influence of industry on foreign and domestic trade, on the civilization and power of the nation and on its maintenance of independence, as well as on the resulting ability to create material wealth" p. 273

“He attributes the process of formation of capital in a nation to the operations of the rentier, whose income depends on the value of his material capital, and who cannot increase the latter except by adding to it his savings.

Saying this he does not understand that the theory of savings, suitable for some merchant office, applied in the country, would lead the nation to poverty, barbarity, weakness and decay.

Where everyone, for the sake of savings, deprives himself of everything possible, there can be no incentive to production. Where everyone strives to accumulate values, the intellectual power necessary for production disappears. A nation consisting of such crazy buyers would refuse to defend the fatherland just to avoid the costs of war; and when her entire fortune would become the prey of the enemy, then only she would understand that national wealth is acquired in a completely different way than the wealth of rentiers" p. 274

"The formation of national capital does not occur through savings alone, as is the case with rentiers, but through general interaction productive forces between intellectual and material national capital and between agricultural, industrial and commercial capital. An increase in a nation’s material capital depends on an increase in its intellectual capital and vice versa” p. 274

“Say advises the English to devote the capital invested in industry to agriculture. He did not explain how such a miracle could happen, but to this day this secret is unknown to the statesmen of England...

Obviously, Say mixed the concepts of private and national capital here. One manufacturer or merchant can withdraw his capital from industry or trade by selling factories or ships and purchasing landed property for the proceeds; but an entire nation cannot carry out such an operation without losing a significant part of its material and intellectual capital. The reason why the liberal school obscured what was so clear is very simple. It is worth calling things by their real names, and then it will be completely clear that the movement of productive forces from one industry to another will cause difficulties; while this goal is incompatible with the principles of free trade, its implementation can be achieved with the help of a protective system" pp. 279-280

9. Contradictory assessments of protectionism by the liberal school

"He who in one place proves with such clarity that capital employed in international trade should not be considered as the property of the nation in particular until it is, so to speak, invested in the native soil, completely overlooks what such a premises capital can only take place with the help of patronage provided to local factories and factories. He does not take into account the fact that industry, which is at a high level of development with the help of protectionist measures, is a bait that attracts foreign capital, both intellectual and material, to this country" p. 273

"He erroneously claims that industry would rise on its own, naturally, while the government of each country interferes here, artificially changing the direction of this natural path in the private interests of this industry... This argument, resting on ambiguity, and therefore completely false in its foundation, he supports with an equally false example, saying that the desire to create industry artificially would be as pointless as the desire to produce wine in the same way in Scotland" pp. 273-274

“The opposition of the interests of the development of agriculture and industry is the greatest misconception... We must not forget that the prevailing theory... has largely contributed to the development among landowners of an incorrect view of this issue. Smith and Say took care, on the one hand, to present the desire of manufacturers to the establishment of protective measures, on the other hand, to extol the nobility and selflessness of landowners, who were far from demanding the same measures in their favor" p. 297-298

“The liberal school sees the main basis for criticizing protectionism in the costs of customs administration and in the harm that occurs from smuggling. This harm cannot be denied; but can it be taken into account when it comes to measures that determine the power and well-being of the nation and even the nation itself? its existence? Can the harm that resulted from the maintenance of standing armies and wars serve as a basis for a nation to abandon its own defense?

The harm from a poorly organized customs administration should not be confused with the harm from the system of protectionism as such" p. 355

“Adam Smith allows customs protection of national industry in three cases: first, as a measure of retaliation (retortion) in the case when another nation imposes restrictions on our exports, and when there is a hope that our reprisals will force it to lift these restrictions; -secondly, for the defense of the country, when the country, in conditions of free competition, cannot itself produce the industrial products necessary for this purpose; thirdly, as a method of equalization, when foreign goods are subject to lower taxes than local ones." 355-6

The principle of retortion, proclaimed by the liberal school, can cause the most senseless and disastrous measures: what is the point of introducing customs bans as a temporary measure, and then canceling them, because the enterprises created by that time will be at risk of ruin and closure under the influence of the newly begun free trade with. 356

“By the second exception, Adam Smith actually justifies not only the need for patronage of those industries that satisfy the military needs of the country, such as, for example, arms and gunpowder factories, but also the entire system of protectionism in the sense as we understand it; for this system, creating The industry of a nation influences the increase of its population, its material wealth, its productive force, its independence and all intellectual forces, and therefore the increase in the means of national defense to an incomparably greater extent than the patronage of arms and gunpowder factories alone.

The same must be said about the third exception. If the taxes that are imposed on domestic goods provide grounds for imposing customs duties on foreign goods that are less burdened with taxes, then why do the losses that our domestic production suffers in comparison with foreign ones do not provide grounds for protecting domestic industry from the influence of ruinous foreign competition? ? p. 357

“J-B. Say allows patronage only in the case “when there is reason to believe that any branch of industry in a few years will become so profitable that it will no longer require patronage.”

Say's inconsistency, as well as Adam Smith's. “In a nation which, by its natural conditions and development, is called upon to create industry, almost all branches of industry must become profitable under the influence of persistent and strong patronage, and it is ridiculous indeed to leave the nation to improve any important branch of industry or a whole group of industries , only a few years, like some boy who is sent to be apprenticed to a shoemaker for several years..." p. 356-357

10. The liberal school's erroneous explanation of the nature of land rent

Adam Smith explained the increase in rent by improving land plots, increasing the number of livestock, and considered the development of industry as an indirect reason. “Thus, industry, which is the main cause of the increase in rent, as well as the value of land, is placed in the background by him, so that it is barely noticeable, while the improvement of land and the increase in livestock, which in most cases are caused by industry and the emerging hence trade, they are preferred or, at least, they are presented as the main reasons” p. 282

“We have already noticed that under the influence of industry and related trade, with the same natural fertility, the value of English lands is 10 or 20 times higher than the value of Polish ones. If we now compare the total total of industrial production and capital of England with the total total of its production and capital , we find that the greatest part of the wealth of a nation lies chiefly in the value of its landed property." p. 283

Thus, according to data for 1835, the value of cultivable land in England is more than 1/2 of the English national capital and 12 times higher than the total amount of capital invested in industry. Thus, industrial and commercial capital together constitute only 1/18 of England's national wealth, much less than the capital in England's agriculture. 284

“Destroy this 218 million of industrial and commercial capital and you will see that not only 259.5 million of the income derived from it has disappeared, but also the largest part of the 3,311 million of agricultural capital, and consequently the 559 million of income , which this last capital gives.

English national industry will not only decrease by 218 million pounds sterling. (the amount of its assets), but the value of the land will reach the level at which it is in Poland, i.e. will drop to 1/10 or 1/20 of its present value. It follows that the entire capital invested by an agricultural nation in industry increases the value of the land 10 times...

The reason for this phenomenon lies in the increase of national productive forces, which themselves depend on a rational division of labor and on a more energetic association of national forces, as well as on better use mental and natural forces that the country has and, finally, from foreign trade" p. 285

“Adam Smith and his school in this matter fell into the biggest mistake, which we have already pointed out ... Namely, Adam Smith did not clearly understand and sufficiently explain the influence of industry on the increase in rent, the value of land and agricultural capital and did not clarify it in in full, he, on the contrary, placed the importance of agriculture above industry, so that it turns out that agriculture is incomparably more important for the country, as if the welfare resulting from it is much more stable than industry and the welfare that depends on the latter. In this case, Smith is only a successor of the physiocrats, although and with some modifications of their erroneous views. Obviously he was misled - as we have shown on the basis of statistical data regarding England - by the fact that in a country rich in factories and factories, agricultural capital is 10-20 times more significant than industrial capital, and thus that annual agricultural production in value significantly exceeds the total capital of industry" p. 294-295

"Adam Smith argues that the development of industry indirectly contributes to the development of agriculture, and the growth of population, the number of livestock, and communications directly contribute to the latter. This is sophistry ... just look at an industrial country to be convinced that industry itself is the main reason for the increase population, the number of livestock, means of communication, etc. Is it logical and consistent to equate effects with their causes... What could lead such a penetrating mind as Adam Smith to such perverse judgments that go against the essence of things as not a desire to leave in the shadows industry and its influence on the welfare and power of the nation in general and on the increase in rent and land value in particular? And for what else would all this be needed if not to avoid explanations that would loudly speak in favor of protection system? With. 299-300

"The theory of Ricardo, a follower of Adam Smith, states that rent is an expression of the natural fertility of land. Ricardo built an entire system on this idea. If he had visited Canada, he could have made observations in every valley, on every hill, that would convinced him that his theory was built on sand. But since he had only England before his eyes, he fell into the mistake of thinking that English fields and meadows, which currently provide such beautiful rent owing to apparently natural fertility, were at all times the same fields and meadows. The initial natural fertility of land spaces is in fact so insignificant and provides the user with so little surplus in products that land rent hardly deserves even the name of such. In its primitive state, the whole of Canada, inhabited exclusively by trappers, could hardly provide from the sale of meat and skins an income sufficient to pay the salary of one professor of political economy at Oxford. The natural productive capacity of the soil on the island of Malta lies in stones, which could hardly provide rent...

Everywhere, initially, rent had no meaning and increased with the growth of culture, population and the development of intellectual and material capital" p. 300

“In industrial countries, a much larger percentage of the population lives on land rent than in agricultural countries. In England in 1831, out of a population of 16.5 million people, 1.1 million lived on rent. In agricultural Poland there were 20 times fewer such people. ..

The largest land rent is not associated with agriculture, but is associated with serving the needs of the urban population. The principle of rent is the benefit that land provides... the size of this benefit is determined by the amount of intellectual and material capital that society in general possesses, as well as those funds that are at the disposal of private individuals, the special qualities of the soil and the capital previously spent on it..." p. 301

11. The liberal school extols trade, placing it above production, without understanding the actual role of production and trade in economic development

"Agriculture and industry supply markets with goods; trade is only an intermediary in the exchange of goods between farmers and industrialists, between producers and consumers. It follows that trade should be regulated according to the interests and needs of agriculture and industry, but not agriculture and industry should follow the interests and needs of trade...

But the liberal school understood this last point in precisely the opposite sense, adopting as its motto the expression of old Gournay: laissez faire, laissez passer - an expression that is just as beneficial to robbers, rogues and idlers as it is to merchants, and for this reason alone is quite suspicious. This perversion of concepts, sacrificing the interests of industry and agriculture, with absolute freedom of action, in favor of the claims of trade, is the natural consequence of that theory which pays attention only to value and never to the productive forces, and which looks upon the whole world as one great republic of merchants. The liberal school does not notice that a merchant can achieve his goals, which are to acquire values ​​through exchange, even to the detriment of farmers and industrialists, contrary to the productive forces and without sparing the independence and independence of the nation. He is indifferent, and the nature of his operations and his aspirations does not allow him to care about the effect of the goods he imports or exports on the morality, welfare and power of the country. He imports both poisons and medicines. He exhausts entire nations by importing opium and vodka. Whether he, through legal import or smuggling, provides hundreds, thousands of people with employment and a means of subsistence, or whether he reduces them to poverty, is completely indifferent to him, as long as he realizes the profit. Whether his hungry compatriots try to emigrate, escaping from the poverty they suffer in their homeland, he will extract exchange values ​​from this too, transporting them to distant countries. During the war, he supplies the enemy with weapons and provisions. If it were possible, he would sell everything abroad, including arable fields and meadows, and, having received money for the last piece of land, he would board his own ship and export himself.

Thus, it is clear that the interests of merchants and the interests of trade of an entire nation are as different as heaven and earth. In this sense, Montesquieu said: “What hampers the merchant does not hamper trade as a result, and nowhere do laws interfere with it so little as in enslaved states” (Esprit des lois, book XX, chapter XII)” p. 303

The size of the internal market (internal trade) of industrialized countries is 10-20 times higher than the same indicator in agricultural countries (an example of which is England in comparison with Poland and Spain), and they exceed the size of the most flourishing foreign trade by 5-10 times. 305

“Only that nation that produces all industrial products at the lowest prices can establish trade relations with peoples of all zones and all levels of culture; only it alone can satisfy all their needs, and, due to the lack of the latter, create new ones, accepting raw materials and agricultural products in exchange.” products of all kinds" Consequently, the development of trade is the result of the development of industry p. 306

12. Insincerity of the liberal school regarding the impact of free trade

“Obviously, Adam Smith saw in the idea of ​​free trade the basis on which he should lay the foundation of his literary fame. It is quite natural, therefore, since in his work he tried to remove and challenge everything that contradicted this idea, that he looked upon himself as a defender of the absolute freedom of trade and thought and wrote in this spirit.

Could Adam Smith, in view of such a preconceived view, be expected to regard things and men, history and statistics, political events and their creators in any other way than from the point of view of how much they agreed or disagreed with him? idea, do they correspond or do not correspond to it?" p. 379

“In general, it seems to us that the defenders of free trade ... would have acted much more consistently if they had quite frankly advised all nations to become subordinate to England and thus take advantage of all the benefits of the English colonies. This subordinate position would obviously be incomparably more favorable for their economic position than the ambiguity of the position of those nations which, without having created their own system of industry, trade and credit, nevertheless strive to gain independence in relation to England" p. 322

13. Ignoring by the liberal school of economic history and its incorrect interpretation of historical facts

“Why did Adam Smith not consider the main reasons for the decline of the Hanse? Moreover, they were illuminated by his compatriots - Anderson, Macpherson, King and Hume. How and why could this deep and inquisitive mind refrain from such an interesting and abundant research? We do not We see no other reason than that such an investigation would lead him to conclusions that could hardly confirm his principle of absolute free trade... Without a doubt, the facts themselves would lead him to the conclusion that ... a protective commercial policy has brought the English nation industrial dominion over the Hanseatics, the Belgians and the Dutch, and that from here, through a protective system in respect of shipping, their trading power developed.

These facts, apparently, Adam Smith did not want to know or notice" p. 82

“How, in spite of such historical results, proven beyond a doubt, could Adam Smith make such a false judgment about the English Navigation Act, as he did? ... These facts stand in the way of his favorite idea of ​​\u200b\u200bunlimited freedom of trade, and he had to, in order to eliminate those objections that could be made against his principle on the basis of the results to which the navigation act led, to put forward the position that political and economic goals are different, and to assert that the navigation act, although politically necessary and useful, but economically was unprofitable and harmful. How little such a division corresponds to the essence of things and is justified by experience is clear from our presentation" p. 98

The liberal school cites the examples of Switzerland and Spain as evidence of the beneficial effects of free trade on industry. Switzerland is a special case, explained by the existence of special niches of its specialization (luxury items and products), as well as the presence of huge capital and technical know-how that fled to free Switzerland (which was an “island of freedom”) from neighboring despotic states. 358-359

As for Spain, it has never pursued a consistent policy of protectionism; the ban on the export of precious metals it introduced is not protectionism. In addition to the freedom of trade that reigned in the Spanish Empire, despotism, the Inquisition and the expulsion of a number of national and religious minorities flourished in it - neither of which contributed to the development of industry, which was in decline since. 359-360

“Our liberal theorists use the example of England only to confirm their position that the ability for industrial production is a gift of nature, with which only well-known countries are endowed - such, for example, as the ability to produce Burgundy wines - and that England, ahead of all countries on earth, received the appointment to development of industry, factories and extensive trade...

To what circumstances England owes its industrial and commercial dominance, we have already shown above (Chapter 5). Freedom of thought and civil liberty were important factors in the creation of English industry, along with English protectionism. But who will dare to challenge other nations’ ability to rise to the same degree of freedom?” pp. 358-360

Adam Smith's misjudgment of the Methuen Trade Treaty:

“In 1703, after the death of Count Hereceira, the famous minister Methuen managed to convince the Portuguese government that Portugal would gain enormous benefits if England reduced the duty on wine imported from Portugal by one third, and Portugal, in turn, agreed to allow the import of English cloth at to the same import tariff as existed before 1684 (23%)... As a result of the conclusion of the treaty, the King of England called the King of Portugal his oldest "Friend and Ally", in exactly the same sense as the Roman Senate, which gave this title to those of the rulers who had the misfortune of being in close relationships with him.

Following the enforcement of this commercial treaty, Portugal was immediately flooded with English manufactured goods, and the first result of this flood was the sudden and complete destruction of the Portuguese factories - a result similar to that which resulted from the later so-called Treaty of Eden with France (1786). .) and the abolition of the continental system in Germany (1814).

According to Anderson, the British were already so experienced in the ability to show the value of goods much lower than their actual value that in fact they paid no more than half the duty established by the customs tariff (Anderson, Origin of Commerce, Vol. III, p. 76) " p. 113

““As soon as the prohibition was lifted,” says the British Merchant, “we took away from them such a mass of silver that they were left with only the most insignificant quantity for their own needs. Then we set about exporting their gold” (British Merchant, Vol. III, p. 267). gold for Indian and Chinese goods, which they then sold on the European continent in exchange for raw materials.The annual import of English manufactures into Portugal exceeded its exports by about a million pounds sterling. ...

Since then, this agreement, in the eyes of all merchants, economists and all government officials in England, has been the height of the art of English trade policy. Anderson, who is quite clear on everything that concerns English commercial policy and is generally distinguished by great frankness in this respect, calls this treaty “extremely fair and advantageous,” and at the same time cannot refrain from a naive exclamation: “Oh, if only it could exist always and forever! Only Adam Smith did not hesitate to express a view completely opposite to that generally accepted and argued that the Methuen Treaty in no way assisted English trade. Indeed, if anything proves the blind respect with which public opinion treated the sometimes highly paradoxical views of this famous person, it is the fact that his above opinion has so far remained without refutation" pp. 114-115

Another statement of A. Smith is that the British did not receive any privileges under the treaty, because paid the same duty as other countries, and the Portuguese received a privilege. “But didn’t the Portuguese previously receive most of the foreign goods they needed from France, Holland, Germany and Belgium? Didn’t the British, on the contrary, now seize exclusively the Portuguese market for their industrial products, from where they themselves began to receive raw materials? Didn't they find a way to reduce the Portuguese duty by half?... Didn't Portuguese gold and silver provide the English with the means to export a mass of goods from India and flood the entire continent with them? Didn't the Portuguese cloth factories collapse to the benefit of the English? Didn't all the Portuguese "The colonies, especially rich Brazil, did not actually become English colonies? A similar tendency underlies all other trade agreements of England. In words they were always cosmopolitans and philanthropists, but in their aspirations they were always monopolists." 115

Another statement by Smith is that it would be more profitable for England to exchange cloth immediately for those goods that it needed, and they first received Portuguese gold, transported it to India and China, bought goods there, etc.: “we there is nothing left to do but complain about the weakness of human nature, to which Adam Smith, along with others, paid a rich tribute with his paradoxes and his ridiculous arguments - obviously blinded by his desire to prove the need for absolute free trade.

There is no more common sense and logic in this reasoning than in the statement that a baker who sells bread to his customers for money, and with this money buys flour from the miller, is conducting an unprofitable trade, since if he exchanged his bread directly for flour , then he could achieve his goal through one exchange instead of two. It does not take much intelligence to object to such a consideration that perhaps the miller does not need to consume as much bread as the baker can offer him, that perhaps the miller himself knows how to bake bread and actually bakes it, and that therefore trade Without these two exchanges, the baker might not have gone at all. This was exactly the situation in trade relations between Portugal and England during the trade agreement" pp. 115-116

If the British tried to sell their cloth directly to other countries (and not to Portugal), no one would buy it in such quantities - they would not have gold - they would not be able to buy such quantities of goods in India and sell them in Europe in exchange for raw materials, and therefore nothing would come of their trade. 117

“Adam Smith’s third consideration is no less erroneous, when he thinks that the English, if they had not had an influx of gold from Portugal, would have satisfied their need for it in other ways.” Portugal could produce cloth itself, and use its gold to conduct large-scale trade with India - Europe, and then the British would be completely out of business. “In short, the factories, trade and shipping of England, without the Treaty of Methuen, would never have reached the development that they actually achieved” p. 117

Yuri Kuzovkov. Trilogy "The Untold History"

1. Adam Smith falsely accused the protectionist system of protecting the interests of merchants and manufacturers and called it the "mercantile system"

“A. Smith’s assertion that the authors and inspirers of the system of protectionism in Great Britain were “merchants and manufacturers”, in whose interests, and not in the interests of the broad mass of the population, this system was allegedly created, has long been refuted by historians. How wrote the famous English historian Charles Wilson, “today we know more than Adam Smith about the process of developing mercantilist policies in England... A very wide range of people participated in this process, not only merchants and industrialists. And the “politics” itself was not simply about satisfying the wishes of powerful merchants or companies, but had to take into account the need to maintain public order, which could be in danger due to large-scale unemployment or food shortages, an imperfect tax collection system and problems with ensuring military security” (pp. 165-166) " ("

2. The world's dominant liberal economics declared the positive role of free trade and globalization to be an "axiom" and introduced a virtual ban on research into their actual role.

“Forbidden topics in Western science are not limited only to history, including economic and demographic history. They fully relate to economics. In the 20th century, many different economic hypotheses and concepts appeared, trying to describe difficult-to-explain economic phenomena, including, for example, the theory long cycles of the famous Russian economist Kondratiev. It speaks about the possibility of long economic cycles (80 years or more in length), at the end of which another general crisis sets in. Since the appearance of this theory, it has been studied many times, numerous comments have been made, and a variety of reasons have been proposed for the long Kondratiev cycle. A variety of, except for the most obvious reasons associated with the cycles of globalization - that is, with periods of intense international trade. And never in the hypotheses of long cycles have Western economists analyzed those indicators that, as shown above, actually determine this long cycle: changes in the level of customs duties, uneven distribution of income in society, the degree of monopolization, as well as demographic waves. Although, in principle, any objective economic analysis will show the presence of such waves over the last 4-5 centuries.

Thus, despite the fact that the entire current Western ideology is built on the praise of globalization, no Western economist has ever seriously considered this phenomenon - with numbers and facts in hand, using data from at least the last few centuries. So, we see that a completely unfamiliar and unexplored path of development (globalization) has been imposed on humanity, which, quite possibly, leads it to the abyss. And there is a strict taboo on any research on this path. Nothing else can explain the absence of serious attempts on the part of Western economists to consider the development of globalization even over the last few centuries, not to mention medieval and ancient globalization, since... the very existence of globalization in the history of Europe (since the 12th century) was still in 1970 - years were thoroughly reviewed and proven by I. Wallerstein" ("Globalization and the Spiral of History", Chapter XIII).

“The fact that in the liberal economic science that prevails today there is no clear understanding of either the process of globalization itself or its consequences was already mentioned in the previous book, and evidence was given for this. This fact is also recognized by the famous American economist D. Stiglitz, who has published several books about globalization. He writes, for example, about the "flawed economic theories" used by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which for several decades demanded that many countries become more actively involved in the processes of globalization (p.17).The latest development - which began in 2008 Against the backdrop of globalization, the most powerful global financial and economic crisis, which is compared to the Great Depression of 1929-1939 and which came as a complete surprise to liberal economics, only confirms this. There are many examples of how this science deliberately ignored research for many decades the impact of globalization and protectionism on the economy. For example, at a major international seminar of economists and economic historians in 1963, dedicated to the problems of economic growth, not a single passage in the reports was devoted to this burning topic. In the transcript of the seminar, I was able to find only two short random remarks on this topic, which were exchanged between the Japanese and German professors (see: Chapter XIII). And from the report of the economic historian D. North on the industrialization of the United States, which was based on his article published in the collection of the University of Cambridge, all facts and phrases concerning the role of protectionism in American industrialization were thrown out (; 2, pp.680-681). In other modern economic books or collections you will also not find any serious studies of the impact of protectionism or globalization on the economy and economic growth.

Exactly the same situation exists today in demographic science, which has abstracted itself from studying the influence of these factors on demographic growth. Meanwhile, it is known that in the 18th century, humanity was convinced that protectionism leads to accelerated population growth: this was an axiom recognized by almost all European states. Although all demographers in the West should know this fact, just as doctors should know who Hippocrates is, none of the modern Western demographers, as far as I know, dared to test this axiom... The reason is simple - try one of the Western It is realistic for demographers to check the axiom of the 18th century on the available historical material, and he can put an end to his future career as a scientist.

Why this happens is not at all difficult to understand. Globalization has become, since the 1960s, the main direction of the policy of Western states and the main idol to which the leaders of these states have since prayed. Accordingly, the word “protectionism” has become almost a dirty word in the mouths of Western politicians and liberal economists... What kind of objective study of globalization or, conversely, protectionism and their consequences for the economy and demography can we talk about given such politicization of this issue? ...

Above, based on numerous facts and using the findings of economic historians, it was proven that protectionism promotes industrialization and economic growth, and globalization undermines both, in fact promoting only large-scale speculation and economic instability. In the first book of the trilogy, the same thing was proven in relation to birth rates and population growth in general, that is, the axiom of the 18th century was confirmed by numerous facts. ...modern liberal economic and demographic science not only deliberately ignores the study of this issue, it disseminates and inculcates the fundamentally false concept that globalization and the rejection of protectionism lead to the prosperity of countries and peoples. In reality, they lead to a global economic crisis, as well as to the degradation and extinction of countries and peoples. This conclusion follows from the mass of historical facts - the very ones the study of which is ignored by modern liberal economic and demographic science" ("World History of Corruption", paragraph 18.4)

“The thesis about the need to liberalize foreign trade today, thanks to the efforts of the United States and its allies, has acquired such strength that it is considered an important element of the presence of “liberal views” in a particular government, that is, a sign of “progress and democracy.” D. Harvey is surprised that that today a country with a favorable business climate, according to the approach of the World Bank and other international institutions, is considered to be one that implements the principles of liberalism, and an equal sign is put between these concepts (p. 157).If some country, even not a member of the WTO , suddenly decides to increase any customs duties, the Western media and representatives of Western states immediately begin to accuse it of economic selfishness and of wanting to start a trade war with its neighbors.Membership in the WTO today has become almost mandatory - but the WTO rules do not allow increasing customs duties or applying other protectionist methods. “Today,” writes D. Stiglitz, “unlike the 1930s, incredible pressure is being put on any country to avoid raising tariffs or other trade barriers to reduce imports, even if it faced an economic downturn” (p.107)” (“World History of Corruption”, paragraph 20.3).

3. The liberal school ignores the negative role of mass unemployment, accepting the thesis of its “usefulness”

“This theory of the usefulness of unemployment is most directly related to the liberal economic concept, which places the main emphasis on free foreign trade. As we have seen, it was the beginning of the liberalization of British foreign trade in 1823 (a sharp reduction in import duties) that caused the crisis of 1825 and the subsequent long depression of 1825-1842 with mass unemployment.But from the point of view of these new economic concepts and theories, everything was in the order of things: if unemployment is useful, then the depression that causes it should also be considered, at least partly, useful. And so it happened: economic theories appeared that economic crises are useful: they eliminate overheating of the economy, reduce wages (which is useful for entrepreneurs), create a large labor market (for entrepreneurs), etc." ("World History of Corruption", paragraph 14.2)

“The very idea that labor played a huge role in the formation of man and modern civilization, and indeed any civilization in the past, is not in doubt by anyone... Labor not only determines the results achieved by society, it is also an important need of society Thus, in most of the major social movements of the last two centuries, the central place was occupied by slogans about the right to work, the reduction of unemployment and the fight against those phenomena that increase unemployment and deprive indigenous people opportunities to work normally (slavery in the USA in the mid-19th century, the use of illegal immigrant labor in the modern world, etc.).

All the more surprising is the attitude towards this problem that has developed in Western economic and demographic science. She simply does not see this problem and does not seriously study it. In economic science, the thesis about the “usefulness” of unemployment is firmly established - they say that when workers see a large queue at the labor exchange, they work better and demand less wage increases. Moreover, it is believed that unemployment is “useful” when it is about 5% of the total number of employed people, but if they wish, economists can easily justify the “usefulness” of 10 percent, and if necessary, I think even 20 percent. The main thing is to choose the necessary and convincing arguments, and then you can justify the “usefulness” of anything. At the same time, today in the West only those who are looking for work and regularly report to the employment office are considered unemployed. Those who are already tired of this and who are looking for work through their own channels, or, especially, homeless people and people without specific occupations, are not considered unemployed. Moreover, immigrants who are unemployed are not considered as such. And if you count them all, then actual unemployment in the USA and Western Europe may not be the current official 10%, but about 20-30%, in Eastern European countries - about 50%, and in a number of countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America– probably, it can reach 70-90% of the working population. Thus, in reality, in today’s world, approximately half of the working-age population is unemployed, and not because they are lazy and don’t want to work, but because there is simply no place for these people in the current global economic system. And the only thing they can do is become dependents, vagabonds or bandits...

In fact, just as no economist has proven the “usefulness” of globalization and free trade, none of them have proven the “usefulness” of unemployment. And not only did he not prove, but he did not even try to collect and systematize objective information proving or disproving this “usefulness”. The same reproach can be made against demographers - no one has tried to objectively analyze the impact of unemployment on demography, primarily on the birth rate. Meanwhile, the facts presented in the first book of the trilogy indicate that any increase in unemployment has a bad effect not only on economic growth, but also on the birth rate. Such a conclusion could be made without even going into the study of history, but simply by taking data on unemployment and birth rates for different countries over the last 2-3 centuries. Therefore, unemployment is in fact not only a consequence of globalization, but also the most important factor in the decline in the birth rate and the aging of the population - that is, that time bomb that is now placed under the economy and well-being of most countries in the world and which can explode in our lifetime.

All this is another big secret of Western economists and demographers, which they carefully guard. However, the vast majority of them are probably simply unaware of its existence. But those who know about it continue to keep this secret. And they do this not only out of love for their warm place, but also out of awareness of the pointlessness of fighting the current situation. Because even if one of them conducts an independent analysis and draws a conclusion that contradicts the prevailing political attitudes, this will not change anything. Dozens, hundreds, a whole army of all kinds of authors will immediately come forward to refute this conclusion, who will drown both these conclusions and the most unlucky scientist in a stream of criticism and instructions" ("World History of Corruption", paragraph 18.4).

4. The liberal school misinterprets the facts of economic history

“Adam Smith’s criticism of the prevailing system of mercantilism in England, or, in today’s terminology, protectionism, is biased. This is clearly seen from its very essence and from the way he constructs this criticism, which can be illustrated with several examples.

Thus, he plays on the main argument of supporters of protectionism and opponents of free trade ideas - that free trade between countries contributes to increased unemployment - in a rather unique way. He objects, of course, but in addition to some logical arguments, he also gives the following example. Look, says A. Smith, “as a result of the reduction of the army and navy at the close of the last war, more than 100,000 soldiers and sailors ... were immediately deprived of their usual employment; nevertheless, although they undoubtedly experienced some inconvenience, this by no means deprived them of all occupation and livelihood” (p. 342). Note that the example given concerns England itself (where there was a mass discharge from the army), which had lived under conditions of protectionism for a whole century by the time A. Smith’s book was published. This example, therefore, has nothing to do with free trade. Rather, on the contrary, this example can prove the opposite - that under protectionism, even such a massive layoff does not cause an increase in unemployment.

Perhaps Adam Smith did not have other examples of free trade at hand? Nothing of the kind - he himself further writes that Holland is one of the few countries pursuing a free trade policy, setting it as an example for England (p. 362). In this case, the question arises, why does he not provide data on how quickly unemployment is disappearing in Holland? Yes, it’s very simple - he could not provide such data, because it was in Holland that by that time unemployment had long since become widespread and chronic. And unlike England, it didn’t dissolve anywhere. So, at the beginning of the 19th century. The Prussian ambassador to Holland wrote that half the population of Amsterdam was below the poverty line (p.268). And the English - close neighbors of the Dutch, who knew them well - including, no doubt, Adam Smith himself, should have been very well aware of this fact.

We thus see a classic example of how the author, without evidence and compelling arguments, acts as a kind of magician or “thimblemaker” who deceives the public. The audience thinks that there is a ball under one of the cups and watches the cup's movements on the table; but the ball has actually not been there for a long time; it was unnoticeably thrown out of there a long time ago. And they move an empty glass across the table, the movements of which no longer mean anything and prove nothing" ("Globalization and the Spiral of History", Comments on Chapter XIII).

"Many liberal economists...argue that nationalization...harms society because it transfers enterprises from a "good manager" (the capitalist) to a "bad manager" (the state). In many cases, however, this is not the case: it all depends from control by the state and society over the activities of state-owned enterprises, which is clearly seen in the example of post-war Western Europe. The latter provides an amazing example of mass and very successful nationalization, the real reasons for which historians prefer to keep silent about. And the very fact of almost universal nationalization is mentioned usually they are mentioned in passing or not mentioned at all" ("World History of Corruption", paragraph 19.2).

“In 2008-2009, it became obvious that the model of economic development that Putin was trying to build (and which could be called the model of liberal state capitalism) began to burst at all the seams. Liberal propagandists are actively trying to use this crisis that has begun and is obvious to everyone today. in order, firstly, to completely undermine the population’s trust in Putin’s team and, secondly, to push Russia back into the abyss it had already been to in the 1990s. At the same time, they resort to obvious distortions and distortions of facts. For example, professors of Morgan Stanley, Yale University and the Russian School of Economics S. Guriev and O. Tsyvinsky argued in an article in Vedomosti dated March 30, 2010 that Russia in the 2000s allegedly pursued a policy of isolationism and closedness from the world economy - and this is exactly what had a negative impact on the development of the country, and the only “proof” of this thesis in the article was the fact that Russia was unable to join the WTO in the 2000s. In this regard, it is worth recalling the course of negotiations on accession to the WTO during Putin’s presidency (2000-2008). Russia coordinated its accession to the WTO with almost all countries of the world (with the exception of 2-3 countries that took an obstructionist position) and unilaterally fulfilled all its obligations under bilateral treaties that had not yet entered into force. In other words, in the 2000s, it abandoned protectionism and protection of national producers, although it was not at all obliged to do this: after all, until the signing of agreements with all WTO member countries, the signed agreements do not yet enter into force and are not binding. Thus, the Russian government did everything possible (and even impossible) just to join the WTO, and the fact that Russia still did not join there is in no way the result of its own actions - but is the result of the prevailing circumstances and the desires of the West to negotiate unprecedented concessions from Russia, contrary to common sense. What this has to do with Russian “isolationism”, which Guriev and Tsivinsky write about, is completely unclear.

But if we leave aside the question of joining the WTO (which only indicates Russia’s obstruction from the West, and nothing more), then we do not see even the slightest signs of “isolationism” in Russian policy during this period. In particular, exports of the main export product - crude oil - from Russia to the world market increased from 113 million tons. in 1999 to 238 million tons. in 2009, that is, more than 2 times (!), with a general increase in oil production in the country from 305 to 494 million tons. As a result, although Russia accounted for only 4-5% of world oil reserves, its share in the world production of “black gold” in the late 2000s. was 13%. In other words, all the oil that Russia could physically produce, it sought to “throw out” onto the world market, while more far-sighted countries tried to preserve this non-renewable resource for future generations. On the other hand, in the market for most consumer goods (clothing, shoes, electronics, medicines, etc.), the share of imports in domestic consumption of Russians in the 2000s was was 80-90%, and the share own production– respectively, only 10-20% (see next chapter). So what kind of “isolationism” are we talking about during Putin’s presidency? On the contrary, there is the most striking example of liberalism - complete absence support for national producers with the country's deepest participation in international trade! Of course, this participation is one-sided - “oil in exchange for everything else,” that is, trade between the colony and the mother country - but this is the inevitable result of liberalism, and not at all “isolationism” or protectionism.

5. The liberal school ignores and suppresses facts about the adverse consequences of a free foreign trade regime

On the role of the free trade regime in the French Revolution of 1789-1795:

“The history of liberal market reforms in France at the end of the “ancien regime” is well known and described in the works of many historians. Under the influence of liberal ideas, the French government in 1763 eliminated all customs duties in the grain trade, both internal and external, and abolished any state regulation of this trade. At the same time, it did not even take care of such elementary measures designed to interfere with speculation as the creation of centralized grain reserves (2, p.615), not to mention the more complex methods of state regulation used in England during the 16th century. -XVIII centuries This caused monstrous speculation in grain and food crises throughout France, which did not stop throughout the entire period of liberal reforms and ended with the mass famine of 1770-1771, which, as S. Kaplan notes, surpassed the worst of them in its monstrous consequences those that ever happened in France (1, p.210). Masses of hungry people ate grass, roots, killed their own children or left them on the street, and themselves died of hunger and epidemics (2, pp.502-504) .

Since the Holodomor almost led to a popular revolution, the liberal market experiment had to be temporarily stopped (in December 1770). But the French aristocratic elite wanted to continue it so much that the attempt was resumed already in 1774-1776, when Turgot, one of the leading liberal economists at that time and himself a tenth-generation aristocrat, became the head of the government. This attempt also failed, causing a new outbreak of mass starvation and popular uprisings. Turgot was branded and overthrown, and leading liberal economists were sent into exile. However, 10 years later, in 1786, a new attempt was made to introduce a liberal market economy. It was in 1786 that a free trade agreement was concluded with Great Britain, which led to massive imports of British goods into France. According to contemporaries, within 2 years after the signing of the agreement, this led to the dismissal of 500 thousand French workers and the bankruptcy of 10 thousand enterprises in the country (pp. 91-92). Again, rampant speculation in grain began and famines resumed - the one that happened in 1788-1789, on the eve of the revolution, according to S. Kaplan, even surpassed in its catastrophic consequences the famine of 1770, that is, it was perhaps the most severe ever history of the “old regime” (2, p.489).

It was the liberalization of the country's economy, according to economic historians, that became the main reason for the terrible economic turmoil and famines in France in the period from 1764 to 1789, and contemporaries who lived in that era shared the same opinion. S. Kaplan cites a number of opinions and facts collected by officials and observers who monitored the development of food crises. According to their conclusion, total liberalization freed the hands of speculators and various kinds of “malicious individuals” who organized artificial food shortages and profited by selling it at prices several times higher than usual. The American historian even notes this pattern. Grain shortages occurred most often in cities located near navigable rivers or near the sea: speculators bought up all the grain available in the city and took it out by river or sea for export or to neighboring provinces, leaving the city without food - S. Kaplan has collected numerous articles about this facts (1, pp.205-206, 189, 257-258, 272-276).

Of course, all this caused massive popular unrest. Only in the first four years of liberalization, from 1765 to 1768, and only in two French provinces (Paris and Rouen), according to S. Kaplan’s calculations, more than 60 uprisings occurred - and this after calm and almost serene, according to historians, decades mid-18th century (1, pp.188-189).

But liberal economists and ministers continued to stick to their line. As for the uprisings, they were considered not the result of government policy, but the fruit of human prejudices. The physiocratic leader Turgot, who was head of government in 1774-1776, considered these uprisings the result of a conspiracy against the ideas of liberalism, and his predecessor Laverdley argued that the people did not understand anything and acted “blindly.” The irony of life was, writes S. Kaplan, that the people were not blind, they saw perfectly well how speculators first bought up all the food in the city, then hid it or loaded it onto a barge to be sent to another place, leaving it in the city empty counters (1, p.217, 2, p.670). Blindness struck precisely the liberal economists, who firmly believed in the theory they propagated and did not want to admit its discrepancy with practice. Liberal magazines of that time, despite the situation in the country, continued to serenely write that under the conditions of a regime of economic freedom, mass starvation is impossible, since the invisible hand of the market does not allow shortages of goods, therefore, all fears in this regard are unfounded (1, p.217).

As a result, the historian concludes, it was economic liberalization that was the cause of the famines of 1770-1771. and 1788-1789, giving rise to feverish food speculation, disorganizing the supply system and creating an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty (2, p.488). I. Wallerstein came to the same conclusion, not only in relation to the famines, but also to the economic situation in general, since liberalization also led to mass unemployment, the collapse of French industry and the impoverishment of the masses of the population. By opening the economy of their country to imports, the historian points out, the monarchy in France “sawed off the branch on which it was sitting,” as this led to a sharp aggravation of the social crisis and to the subsequent transformation of France into an economic colony of England (pp.86, 89, 92). It was the “terrible” economic crisis of 1786-1789. and the famines, according to I. Wallerstein, were the direct impetus that caused the French Revolution (p.93). Most other historians agree with this - they all point to the economic and food crisis, along with the financial crisis, as the immediate causes of the events of 1789 and subsequent years (16, pp. 7-9; pp. 50-57).

So, this is what actually served as the immediate cause or catalyst that caused France in 1789-1795. social explosion: not so much the “restoration of feudalism,” which proceeded slowly and gradually, but rather the active introduction of the liberal model of capitalism. This is also indicated by the continuous series of uprisings that took place throughout the revolutionary years against market traders and speculators, who were the first to be attacked by the rebellious masses. In addition, a whole series of uprisings were directed against capitalism as such, or rather, against its liberal model, which was being implemented before the revolution, and which continued to be implemented after the start of the revolution" ("World History of Corruption", paragraph 13.7).

On the role of free trade in the industrial crises that began in England in the 1820s:

"Already in 1823, Great Britain reduced the general tariff from 50 to 20%, demonstrating its commitment to the liberal principles of free trade (p.136). This immediately led to a sharp and prolonged decline in the country's economy, which lasted almost without interruption from 1825 to 1842, in some industrial centers of England during this period up to 60% or more of the previous number of people employed in industry were laid off or remained unemployed (pp. 35, 153). In turn, the economic recession and mass unemployment became the main reason for the sharp the growth of the protest labor movement in England, which at that time received the name “Chartism”.

Of course, liberal economists denied any connection between the reduction of import duties in 1823 and the subsequent economic decline and unemployment, inventing other reasons, although no modern economic historian can name other compelling reasons for such a long decline that occurred after 150 years of economic expansion in England (called the Industrial Revolution). And in order to divert attention from the discussion of this issue and direct the wave of popular unrest in the wrong direction, another idea was thrown in: that the main reason for all the current misfortunes of the population is high prices for bread, and in order to reduce them, it is necessary to eliminate protectionism in agriculture, including duties and a system of state support for farmers. To disseminate these ideas, the League for the Abolition of the Corn Laws was formed in Manchester in 1838, which began promoting the principles of free trade among the English population and organized for this purpose hundreds of rallies, demonstrations and many “correct” publications in the press on a given topic. As the English historian B. Semmel points out, the English magazine Economist, well known to modern economists, was founded in 1843 precisely in order to “wage the battle for free trade” (p.150)" ("World History of Corruption", paragraph 14.2) .

On the role of free trade in the economic depression of the 1860-1880s. in Europe:

“To impose its policies in Europe, Great Britain preferred to use not military force, but bribery and “brainwashing” with the help of economic theories. But the results were similar - the flooding of Europe with British goods, the deterioration of the economic situation, the curtailment of industrial production, the growth of unemployment and the lumpenization of the population. The example of Spain was already given above.Another example is Russia, which pursued a policy of free foreign trade from the late 1850s to the early 1880s (during the reign of Alexander II).As P. Bayroch points out, during 1869-1879 .its imports grew by an average of 9% per year, and instead of a positive balance of foreign trade, Russia had a deficit, which by the end of the 1870s reached 15% (pp. 42-43). Industrial growth in the country practically ceased, although before this, under Nicholas I, there was a rapid growth of industry. During the same period, famines began in Russia, just as they began in other countries (France, India, Ireland, etc.), in which a free regime was introduced trade. A similar picture emerged in a number of other European countries that opened their markets for English goods in the 1860s: as P. Bayrokh points out, this step was followed by the pan-European economic crisis of 1870-1872, which affected almost all of continental Europe and developed into a protracted 20 -year-long depression (pp.45-46) ("World History of Corruption", paragraph 14.3).

“The protracted economic crisis that began after the liberalization of European trade in the 1860s... convincingly demonstrated to all countries that the promises and forecasts of liberal economists turned out to be wrong” (“World History of Corruption”, paragraph 15.1).

On the role of free trade in the decline of industry and agriculture in Great Britain at the end of the 19th century:

Naturally, the question arises as to what the cause or cause of what happened was. Today there is only one satisfactory explanation: all of the above countries, where at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. Rapid industrialization occurred, and strict protectionism was resorted to during that period. Economic historians are unable to give any other satisfactory explanation...

It is clear that Britain's opening of its economy to external competition in the mid-19th century. ultimately did her a disservice. Of course, thanks to this, she managed at some point to force many countries to also open their economies to British goods, which contributed to the growth of British exports and the prosperity of England in the middle of the century. But many countries: the USA, Germany, Russia, Italy, France, etc., eventually realized the essence of what was happening, and they introduced high customs duties, protecting their domestic markets. This protectionist protection reduced the risk of investment and led to the rapid construction of new enterprises and entire new industries in these countries, while in Great Britain itself, open to external competition, these incentives were absent, therefore, as D. Belcham writes, “firms did not want assume the risk and costs of innovation” ( p.195).

Meanwhile, the crisis struck not only English industry, but also agriculture..." ("World History of Corruption", paragraph 15.1).

On the connection between the free trade regime introduced after the Kennedy Round in the late 1960s and stagflation - the simultaneous increase in inflation and unemployment

“Already during 1967-1970, against the backdrop of slowing economic growth in a number of Western countries, both unemployment and inflation increased. Thus, the economy of West Germany in 1967 was struck by an economic crisis for the first time in the post-war period, and unemployment, which had previously amounted to 0, 5-0.7%, rose to approximately 2%. In the United States, unemployment rose to 3% by 1969, and by the end of 1970 reached a post-war record of 6%; annual inflation in the country during the 1950s and in the first half of the 1960s was 1-1.5%, and in 1969-1970 it reached 5.5% (p.82; p.498;). In the 1970s, the situation continued to worsen. If on average for 1960-1970 the unemployment rate in France, Germany and Great Britain was 1.4%, 0.8% and 1.6%, then by 1976 it reached 4.4%, 3.7% and 5.6%, and in the USA it was 7.6% (p.479; p.79) Annual inflation in Western countries during the 1950s and the first half of the 1960s ranged from 1 to 3%, and in 1970 In the 1970s, it increased many times: in 1974-75 it reached: in France - 12-14%, in Germany - 6-7%, in the USA - 9-11% and in Great Britain - 16-24%. The rise in inflation could not have been the result of the rise in world oil prices in 1973, as some economists had argued. A significant increase in inflation rates began already in the late 1960s and continued until the early 1980s. ...

Western economic science has still not given an answer to what caused the unexpected increase in inflation and unemployment (stagflation) during this period... All the hypotheses put forward about the causes of inflation were divided into two groups - one group called themselves monetarists, argued that the policies of states that issued too much money into circulation were to blame for everything; another group argued that the rise in inflation was a consequence of price monopoly collusion. The main problem with both hypotheses was that they could explain the rise in inflation in one country, but not simultaneously in 20 Western countries, where there were 20 governments pursuing independent monetary policies and 20 national economies at the time. , at that time there were still few interconnected. Therefore, neither one nor the other hypothesis could and cannot explain why in all Western countries during this period there was an increase in inflation, and even simultaneously with an increase in unemployment.

There is only one reason that could have caused the indicated phenomena in the economy, and, as a result, the social movements and protests described above in Western countries. This reason is globalization that began in the 1960s.

During the so-called Kennedy Round of 1964-1967, a series of international conferences and negotiations between Western countries (which laid the foundation for the current WTO system), the United States managed to get Western Europe to liberalize its foreign trade (p.524). But the United States itself had to abandon protectionism - the average level of American import duties by 1968-1972. was reduced to just 6.5%, and for the most protected goods - to 10% (p.141).

Thus, we can establish a fairly precise date for the beginning of current globalization. This last years The Kennedy Round, when Western countries, as a result of the first agreements, began to reduce duties and eliminate restrictions on trade, as well as the first years after the end of the Kennedy Round, when these measures were fully implemented. In other words, this is 1966-1969. As we can see, these are precisely the years when inflation and unemployment began to rise simultaneously in all Western countries, and in a number of countries the first economic crises occurred after a long crisis-free development" ("World History of Corruption", paragraph 20.1).

On the role of free trade and the policy of liberalism in the economic catastrophe in Russia in the 1990s.

“It simply cannot be worse than the economic catastrophe that occurred as a result of rapid liberal reforms in the peaceful 90s, and this catastrophe itself is unprecedented in world history. In terms of its terrifying consequences for our country: economic, demographic, not to mention about social ones - it is comparable to the consequences of the Great Patriotic War, as many authors point out" ("History of Corruption in Russia", paragraph 26.2).

History of corruption in Russia", paragraph 26.2).

On the role of free trade and the policy of liberalism in the destruction of industry and the economy of modern states:

“It is trade liberalization that is the mechanism that destroys existing industry and does not allow its new industries to develop, as D. Stiglitz and other unbiased Western economists admit (pp. 70-71, 200; p. 186; p. 277).. .

D. Stiglitz, who served as chief economist of the World Bank for 3 years (1997-2000), admits in one of his books that the recipes of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank were destructive, because even at the time of crisis they prohibited any stimulation of national production (through depreciation of the national currency, subsidies to enterprises, etc.). As a result, those countries that followed these recipes in the 1980s and 1990s: Mexico, Indonesia, Thailand, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova - faced catastrophic crises, industrial collapse, mass unemployment and poverty, and rampant crime. At the same time, those countries: China, Poland, Malaysia, which abandoned these recipes, were able to achieve much better results (pp.120-127, 180-187). And this is no accident, argues the former chief economist of the World Bank; in fact, he admits that the IMF over the past decades has played the role of a pest, destroying the economies and industries of countries that followed its advice (pp. 89, 126, 187)" ("World History of Corruption", paragraph 20.3).

On the role of free trade in global depressions:

“Attempts to apply the principles of free trade in accordance with the teachings of Adam Smith have already led to global depression three times: in the 1860-1880s, in 1929-1939, and in the global depression that began in 2008” (“World History of Corruption” , clause 20.5).

6. The liberal school ignores and suppresses facts about the role of protectionism in industrialization and economic development

On the role of protectionism in the Industrial Revolution and the rise of agriculture in England in the 18th century:

“The peculiarity of this policy,” writes Charles Wilson, was that it was not individual merchants or industrialists who participated in its development, as Adam Smith, who criticized protectionism, later wrote about this, but a wide circle of people. And this policy itself, the historian notes, did not consist as much in satisfying the wishes of merchants and industrialists as in the desire to solve the general problems of the country: increase employment, eliminate food shortages, etc. Without protectionism, writes Charles Wilson, English industry simply would not have been able to develop, since at that moment Holland had better technologies and more qualified personnel compared to England and could easily crush English industry. Without protectionism, the historian points out, the subsequent rise of English agriculture would have been impossible (pp. 165-166, 184)" ("World History of Corruption" , clause 12.6)

On the role of protectionism in the industrialization of continental Europe and the USA at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries:

“Today, there is only one satisfactory explanation: all of the above countries, where rapid industrialization occurred at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, resorted to strict protectionism during that period. Economic historians are not able to give a single other satisfactory explanation, despite the fact that that such attempts have been made. For example, P. Bairoch states that European countries that switched to protectionism grew much faster than Great Britain in 1892-1914, and provides a table showing how economic growth in European countries accelerated sharply after their transition to protectionism (pp.70, 90). L. Cafagna points out the obvious role of protectionism in the industrialization of Italy during this period, D. North and M. Beals - on its role in the industrialization of the USA, W. Cole and P. Dean - in industrialization Germany, R. Portal - in the industrialization of Russia (p.317; 1, pp.680-681, 17-18, 824-844; p.1044) (“World history of corruption”, paragraph 15.1).

On the role of protectionism in the “post-war economic miracle” in the USA and Western Europe:

"If during 1920-1939 economic growth in the United States practically ceased, then three decades after that - 1940-1969 - the American economy grew at the highest rate in its entire history. US GDP over these three decades grew by 3.7 times, which is an absolute record for them; during this time, not a single, even short-term, crisis or decline in production occurred. Unemployment in the country almost disappeared. Social inequality almost disappeared. From 1929 to 1948, the share of income received 5% of the richest Americans fell from 33% to 20% ( p. 191). A tremendous scientific and technological revolution took place in the country, which led to an unprecedented increase in the well-being of the population. Workers in the previous sense of the word - the overwhelming number of enterprise workers - have almost disappeared began to represent highly educated specialists.American economists and sociologists in the 1960s began to argue that a new social system (“new industrial society”) had been built in America, in which there would never be crises again. It was during this period that America made the economic and technological breakthrough that determined the fate of the competition between East and West and which buried the dream that had previously existed in the USSR of “catching up and overtaking America.” It should be noted that throughout these three decades, the United States has developed under the conditions of a truly free market (demonopolized) economy, strict systems of state business control introduced by Roosevelt, as well as under the protection of high customs barriers"("World History of Corruption", paragraph 17.8).

7. The liberal school unreasonably accuses protectionism of promoting monopolism, while in reality liberal economic theory promotes the spread of monopolism

“A. Smith, apparently, quite deliberately confuses the concepts of “competition within the country” and “freedom of foreign trade.” And he accuses supporters of protectionism, who allegedly have a “spirit of monopoly,” of striving to create monopolies (p. 360). Although , if anyone could be blamed for imposing monopolies and limiting competition, it would certainly not be contemporary England.The Industrial Revolution in England, which, one might say, unfolded right before Adam Smith’s eyes, actually became possible thanks to the spirit free enterprise and the destruction of previously existing (under the royal dynasty of Stuart) trade and industrial monopolies. Smith's criticism of monopolism in relation to England in the second half of the 18th century was, therefore, biased, to say the least.

As for the question raised by A. Smith that customs duties strengthen the monopoly of individual countries (p. 360), this statement is at least very controversial, and it required evidence on his part, which he again did not provide, yes, Actually, I couldn’t imagine it. The fact is that, due to unequal conditions, each country initially has a certain monopoly in relation to the other. And if, through an import duty, it equalizes the less favorable conditions of production at home with those found abroad, then monopoly, on the contrary, is eliminated and not strengthened, as Smith argued. England in the era of A. Smith actively used agricultural protectionism. Thus, English agriculture, which had less favorable starting conditions compared to French or Spanish (where the climate is better suited for crop production), was equalized with them in terms of profitability. Thus, through protectionism, the monopoly of the South of Europe in relation to the North was overcome. And agriculture in England flourished. And when England, following the advice of A. Smith, a century later abandoned protectionism, including agricultural protection, its agriculture suffered a severe crisis, and it almost completely disappeared under the influence of foreign competition. This is a concrete example when agricultural protectionism helped eliminate the monopoly of individual countries in agriculture, and free trade, on the contrary, revived it again. Adam Smith's arguments are therefore untenable - in fact, everything is not as he claimed, but exactly the opposite" ("Globalization and the Spiral of History", Commentary on Chapter XIII).

"One of such theoretical constructs of Ricardo is his theory of comparative advantages of countries' participation in international trade. In accordance with it, each country should specialize in the production of that product where it has some advantages, and it does not have to produce other goods, they can be and it is necessary to purchase abroad. The depravity of this theory is that, firstly, it is used to justify the backwardness of third world countries and Russia: they say they should produce only what they “have advantages” in: oil, gas , bananas, coffee - and abandon any other production. Secondly, from a scientific point of view, Ricardo’s theory is untenable and contradicts the foundations of a market economy. After all, if the production of each product is concentrated in only one country, then the inevitable consequence will be the monopoly of this country in on a global scale.And if one country has achieved a global monopoly, then in the struggle for such a tasty morsel the companies of this country will inevitably clash, which will lead to their merger or their absorption by one of these companies. This is exactly what we have in a number of world markets as a result of the application of this theory of Ricardo and his followers. For example, today Microsoft completely controls the global market for basic software(for which it did everything possible to oust competitors - English company Apple, the American company Netscape and others), and the metallurgical giants Alcoa and Rusal control the global aluminum market (and on the way to this they also absorbed or eliminated all their competitors in Russia and North America). In these world markets, competition has already been completely eliminated - that is, neither global nor national markets in the production of aluminum and basic software no longer exist. And other world and national markets today function only because this principle of Ricardo has not yet been implemented there; when it is implemented, there will no longer be any world (and especially national) market, there will be complete domination of several giant monopolies. Thus, this theory of Ricardo has nothing in common with the actual science of market economics and serves the same thing as Smith’s teaching - to fool the naive and gullible inhabitants of the third world and Russia..." ("World History of Corruption", paragraph 20.5) .

8. The liberal school unreasonably accuses protectionism of causing harm to consumers, while the actual harm to them is caused by the application of liberal economic prescriptions

“The favorite argument of liberal economists since the time of Adam Smith is the thesis that free duty-free imports are good for consumers, since they greatly reduce the cost of consumer goods, while protectionism, on the contrary, makes goods more expensive and is unprofitable for consumers... However, in reality this is not so. Only own production, and not imports, really makes goods cheaper for consumers. But besides this, own production gives jobs to millions of people, that is, it creates those very consumers that liberal economists are so concerned about, without this there are no consumers, but there are lumpen people living on odd jobs. And this can be confirmed by a lot of examples. It was already mentioned above that today in Germany and Italy you can buy high-quality clothes (for example, men's or woman suit, coat, jacket, etc.) or shoes at a price two times, or even 4-5, lower than in Moscow. Meanwhile, the import duty in Russia on these goods today is very low - 10-20%. Thus, the rest of the margin (from 100 to 300%) today is “eaten up” by various resellers who import and subsequently sell goods. Where is the gain for the Russian consumer that liberal economists love to talk about? In fact, Italian and German consumers benefit, and only because local production of good quality clothing is well developed in Italy and Germany. Local manufacturers directly, bypassing all intermediaries, supply clothes to retailers, so they are several times cheaper than the same clothes, but already brought through a chain of intermediaries to Moscow. But beyond this, these local industries in Germany and Italy employ hundreds of thousands of people who, before becoming consumers, first participate in the production process and receive wages that make them consumers. And in Russia in light industry while there is neither one nor the other, there is almost no own production, and therefore hundreds of thousands of people are deprived of work and the opportunity to receive a normal salary and become normal consumers. And consumers employed in other industries cannot find good clothes at affordable prices in Moscow and go to Western Europe on shopping tours, spending their money abroad. Here is a concrete example of how the laws of liberal economics work in practice - the opposite of what liberal economists claim.

Of course, an increase in import duties may initially lead to an increase in prices for imported products. But there are mechanisms to minimize this negative initial effect. For example, you can stretch out the increase in import duties over 4-5 years, increasing them by 8-10% annually - but announcing the upcoming increases in advance. Then businessmen, without waiting for these increases, will begin to invest in creating their own import-substituting industries - and instead of imported goods, a lot of domestic and cheaper ones will appear on the market. The second mechanism is to simultaneously with increasing import duties, first reduce and then completely abolish VAT for domestically produced goods. This will create additional incentives for the creation of import-substituting industries, but in addition, this may lead to a decrease in prices for domestic goods against the backdrop of rising prices for imported goods..." ("History of Corruption in Russia", paragraph 27.4)

9. The liberal school of political economy itself was created not by the “English bourgeoisie” at the dawn of the English industrial revolution, but by the French aristocracy under the “old regime” (which were later swept away by the French Revolution)

“In defiance of English protectionism, the French elite decided to develop their own economic theory, which was first called “political economy” and later called “economic liberalism.”

Few people know that both French political economists and Adam Smith, who can equally be considered the founders of economic liberalism, were literally nurtured by French dukes and marquises under the “ancien regime.” Thus, François Quesnay, the founder of the school of political economy (or, as it is also called, the school of “physiocrats”), was the son of a simple peasant, but became a doctor, and over time, the personal physician and confidant of Madame de Pompadour, a wealthy aristocrat and mistress of King Louis XV. Under her influence and using her support, he began to write on economic topics, and later organized a circle of supporters of liberal views, who met right in Versailles in the apartments of Quesnay and enjoyed the patronage of Madame de Pompadour. She, according to S. Kaplan, “energetically contributed” to the establishment of constant contacts between her protégé Quesnay and King Louis XV, who subsequently came under the strong influence of liberal economic ideas (1, pp.147, 113-114).

Despite the different names: political economists - physiocrats - liberal economists, there was no fundamental difference between their teachings. Therefore, for example, S. Kaplan puts an equal sign between them. (1, p.147). Thus, it was Quesnay and his followers who introduced one of the main concepts used today by liberal economists - laissez-faire (economic freedom), and it was the members of his circle who first began to call themselves economists, and their teaching - political economy.

It is well known that all members of François Quesnay's circle (with the exception of himself) came from the highest French aristocracy or high clergy: the Marquis de Mirabeau, Pierre du Pont de Nemours, Turgot, Mercier de la Rivière, Abbot Nicolas Baudot, Abbot Roubaud, and, of course, Madame de Pompadour herself. Using their wealth and connections, they began to promote and disseminate liberal economic ideas in newspapers, magazines and special publications, and during the second half of the 18th century. in France, these ideas became the dominant system of economic views. The main one of these ideas was that the state should withdraw itself from any interference in economic life, abolish all duties and all regulations and turn into a passive observer, and the elements of the market and the natural course of things themselves will lead to the prosperity of the nation.

Adam Smith was the tutor-teacher of the young Duke of Buccleuch and during his long stay in France he became close to French political economists and was imbued with their ideas - so much so that he was going to dedicate his main work (The Wealth of Nations) to Francois Quesnay, the founder of the liberal school. Adam Smith's work on The Wealth of Nations was also sponsored by the Duke of Buccleuch: he assigned him an extremely generous lifelong pension of £300 a year, which he continued to pay strictly, which allowed Smith to work on his book for ten years without thinking about his daily bread ( 16, p.140; ). Another English liberal economist, David Hume, also lived for a long time in France, was an active participant in the aristocratic circle of Francois Quesnay and was deeply imbued with his ideas (and even more so with his capabilities and connections among the “powers of this world”). It was he who introduced Adam Smith to this circle.

Thus, we see that the so-called “bourgeois political economy”, glorified by K. Marx and later placed by him as the basis of his teaching, was developed not by the bourgeoisie, but by those very... representatives of the highest aristocracy who, according to Marx, should were to be swept away by “bourgeois revolutions” - swept away along with their ideas and theories, which, as we see, did not happen” (“World History of Corruption”, paragraph 13.7).

“Although there is a myth about the English bourgeois classical (liberal) political economy, introduced by Marx, until the 19th century we do not see at all either, strictly speaking, English liberal political economy (but only French and Scottish), nor, especially, bourgeois. After all, all of it was created not by the bourgeoisie, but by the aristocracy: either by the aristocrats themselves, who became liberal “economists,” or under the direct patronage and sponsorship of noble dukes and marquises” (“World History of Corruption,” paragraph 14.2).

10. The real views of liberal economists and the real goals of liberal economics (usually hidden)

“Today we know about this thanks to the fact that English parliamentary debates were transcribed and published, and these publications are still stored in the archives. So, in contrast to those beautiful scientific arguments that English economists and trade representatives generously sprinkled during negotiations with their European colleagues, convincing them to agree to reduce customs tariffs, the arguments for their own members of parliament were much simpler and more intelligible. As a result of free trade, said the representative of the Whig party in the English parliament in 1846, England will turn into the workshop of the world, and “ foreign countries will become valuable colonies for us, without us having to bear the responsibility of governing these countries.” " (p.8) (emphasis added – Yu.K.).

So, we see what the whole free trade campaign and the whole school of liberal political economy with all its scientific reasoning actually served - how best to rob other countries in favor of the English ruling elite, so that Great Britain does not have to bear the burdensome military and administrative expenses that inevitably arose in the colonies. As B. Semmel points out, from the very end of the Napoleonic wars (1815) and for many decades, English entrepreneurs had this dream hammered into their heads - the dream that England would become the workshop of the world (and all the countries that had not yet become its colonies would will lose their industry and become its raw materials appendages), and this will be realized thanks to free trade (p.146)" ("World History of Corruption", paragraph 14.2).

“As D. Harvey writes, neoliberalism has provided a very useful service to the ruling elite of the West: neoliberalization “either led to the restoration of the class power of the ruling elite (as in the USA and to some extent in the UK), or created the conditions for the formation of a capitalist class (as in China , India, Russia and other countries)" (p. 209). Therefore, we see that the “business project” to create and promote neoliberal ideology again brought benefits to those who paid for it. But what about the consumers of rotten goods? And they , as always, suffered only indigestion and intestinal diseases, often with fatal consequences.As Harvey points out, the application of the principles of neoliberalism led to sharp decline rates of economic growth throughout the world, to unprecedented high unemployment, to rampant financial fraud, to the predatory plunder of natural resources, to environmental problems, to the decline of moral values ​​(as everything has become an object of buying and selling in accordance with the basic principle of neoliberalism), as well as infringement of the indigenous rights of the population (since the priority is the protection of private property, not human rights) (p. 209-240). So a false ideology created in one country transforms the whole world - but not at all in the direction in which its creators promised when they propagated this ideology" ("World History of Corruption", paragraph 20.5).

“It also turned out that the so-called liberal economic principles are also applied selectively by the West, as President Putin (2000-2008) pointed out during his first presidential term. It turned out that by demanding from other countries the unconditional abolition of import duties and other measures of protectionism and state support for the national economy, the United States and Western Europe themselves retain a number of such measures, and do not even think about canceling them. This also gave rise to suspicions that the liberal concept is the same tool for establishing the hegemony of the United States and the West over the whole world , like the Western concept of democracy" ("History of Corruption in Russia", paragraph 26.2).

“But the ruling elite of the West achieved what they strived for: in addition to the fact that liberal “reforms” destroyed Russia as an industrial power, almost destroyed it as a state and launched the process of destroying its population, in the 1990s the unbridled plunder of our country by the West began. This is what US President Clinton said in 1995: "We have achieved what President Truman was going to do with the Soviet Union through the atomic bomb. True, with one significant difference - we received a raw material appendage, a state not destroyed by the atom, which would not have been easy to create. Yes , we spent many billions of dollars on this, and they are already close to what the Russians call self-sufficiency: in four years, we and our allies received various strategic raw materials worth 15 billion dollars, hundreds of tons of gold, precious stones, etc. For non-existent projects, over 20 thousand tons of copper, almost 50 thousand tons of aluminum, 2 thousand tons of cesium, beryllium, strontium, etc. were transferred to us for negligible amounts.” (pp. 174-175). The above statement best characterizes the goals pursued by the ruling elite of the West, instilling liberal ideology among Russian economists and politicians. These goals remained the same as in the 19th century, when, according to British parliamentarians , free trade served to transform foreign states into “valuable colonies”, for the management of which there was no need to bear responsibility” (“History of Corruption in Russia”, paragraph 26.2).

“All scenarios for building a liberal economy in Russia within the framework of the global global system are based on the fact that up to 90% of its population will simply be out of work: some will be forced to emigrate, and the rest will simply die out. And this is based on the “iron” economic logic: nowhere in the world, a developed economy does not exist at such latitudes as in Russia, because within the framework of the international division of labor it is economically unprofitable - the costs of energy and the construction of insulated housing and other structures are too high.In Canada, only brown bears live at the latitude of Moscow and St. Petersburg , and there are also shift camps for oil workers. And in Russia, about 3/4 of the population lives at these latitudes. If the implementation of the liberal project continues, all these territories are threatened with desolation. Many Russian patriotic writers write about this: for example, V. Kozhinov, S. Kara-Murza, I. Solonevich and others, who point out the impossibility of Russia’s survival within the framework of a global liberalized economy (p.59; p.379).

But liberal economists understand this perfectly well - they just don’t like to speak out on this topic, it’s theirs great secret, hidden from Russian society. However, some things do become public knowledge. For example, it is the destruction or extinction of 90% of the Russian population that is discussed in the above-mentioned “Harvard Project”. British Prime Minister Thatcher spoke in the same spirit - that in Russia, in a market economy, 15 million people (out of the then 150 million) would be able to survive; the famous American political scientist Brzezinski named another figure - 50 million people, which essentially does not change matters (p. 1109)... And in 1998, with similar views (that Russia will not be able to survive and will perish in global competition) in an interview with Western Another liberal economist spoke to the media - Alfred Koch (see previous chapter)" ("History of Corruption in Russia", paragraph 27.1)

11. The main theoretical flaw of the liberal economic school

“The liberal movement greatly simplifies economics and takes poor account of real economic processes. The central idea of ​​this movement, formulated by the school of François Quesnay (laissez-faire) and repeated by Adam Smith, is that the market regulates itself and therefore the state should not regulate it ( and there is no need to know anything about such regulation). Thus, the accumulated experience of humanity on how to put a market economy at the service of society is rejected. In fact, it was thanks to this experience that the West achieved major successes in the development of its civilization. Denial of this experience in regulating a market economy is tantamount to a proposal to return humanity again to the pre-industrial era - since globalization without government regulation will inevitably lead to total deindustrialization (which is happening all over the world today).All this is nothing more than a profanation of economic science, which, unfortunately, has today taken on a global scale: after all, the liberal movement in the last third of the 20th century turned into the official ideology of the West" ("History of Corruption in Russia", paragraph 26.2).

12. The liberal economic school puts forward and disseminates false theories and views in the field of economics and finance

“Liberal Western concepts and Western financial institutions played a key role in the implementation and subsequent collapse of market reforms of the 1990s. As former World Bank chief economist D. Stiglitz writes, Russia’s transition to a market economy was “designed by international economic institutions”; while the West promised Russia "that the new economic system would bring unprecedented prosperity. Instead, it brought unprecedented poverty: in many ways, for most people, the market economy turned out to be even worse than their communist leaders predicted" (p.6). In Russia, liberal reforms were played by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which demanded the implementation of these reforms as a condition for providing its loans to Russia. Today, the IMF has already officially recognized the fallacy of many of its recommendations of those years (p.90); Stiglitz himself, a former one of the leaders structure of the IMF-World Bank, actually admitted that sabotage had taken place. It is no coincidence, he writes, that those countries that did not follow the IMF's advice tended to succeed in their market reforms, while those countries (including Russia) that followed them failed (pp. 126, 187). ... But these IMF advice were not, as they say, taken out of thin air; they were strictly based on the liberal-monetarist concept, “sanctified” by the pillars of Western economic science - M. Friedman and others. Consequently, we are not just talking about the sabotage of individual officials or even the entire management of the IMF, we are also talking about a whole sabotage concept that dominates world economic science" ("History of Corruption in Russia", paragraph 26.2).

“This happened in the early 1970s, when the United States abolished any peg of its national currency to gold, which had always existed before, from the very early stages of the existence of the American state and the states of Western Europe, and accordingly abolished the exchange of dollars for gold at the official rate. From then until now, the United States has been paying the whole world with simple green bills (dollars), which have no intrinsic value, which they release outside their country in unlimited quantities, without thinking about what will happen to them next when they will become too much. In addition to ordinary green pieces of paper, they issue a huge number of other pieces of paper, and most often not even pieces of paper, but virtual records in a computer database, the creation of which does not even require paper or a printing press - all kinds of bonds, shares, bills , mortgages, promissory notes, derivatives, etc. All of them greatly increase the debt of the United States and the global financial oligarchy to the whole world, but this “debt” is not secured by anything and therefore represents a grandiose financial scam. This is equivalent to if you kept bags of gold sand and thought that you owned great wealth, and one fine day you suddenly discovered that the bags were not gold at all, but ordinary river sand.

Western theories of money that justify this scam claim that the issuance of dollars not backed by gold is ensured by the economic power of the United States and the mass of modern, high-quality goods produced there. But both are very quickly becoming a thing of the past - in recent decades, the country has been deindustrializing at an unprecedented pace in the United States. Moreover, as stated above, the total volume financial transactions in the world in just 18 years, from 1983 to 2001, increased almost 60 times, while the volume of global GDP during the same period increased only about 2 times. Therefore, this gigantic financial dollar bubble is actually not backed by anything - neither specific US obligations, nor commodity content, nor its economic power.

Meanwhile, outside the United States today there are trillions of dollars owned by states, companies and the population of different countries, and which are equivalent to hundreds of millions of such bags of gold, threatening at any moment, as if by the witchcraft of an evil wizard, to turn into sand. All of them do not suspect (or suspect, but do not know what to do now) that they have become the object of the most ambitious financial fraud in the history of mankind, and that one fine day all their dollar savings may melt away like smoke. The first signal that this could happen soon came during the global financial crisis in 2008, but this is just the beginning - the worst is yet to come" ("World History of Corruption", paragraph 20.3).

“I would like to dwell on one more area of ​​work of the American lie factory in the field of economics. This is the development of financial fraud schemes for large corporations and banks, as well as falsification and changes in financial reporting standards. For example, as already mentioned, schemes for issuing derivatives in the United States were developed by leading American research centers and economists who received many prizes and awards for this. In particular, they substantiated using mathematical methods that if a bank has “bad debts” (which, most likely, will not be returned to the bank), then by combining them with the debts of reliable borrowers and by issuing derivatives against these debts, you can get away from the problem of "bad debts", and this can be continued indefinitely, further combining old "bad debts" with new "good debts". Thus, economists, with their justifications, contributed to the growth of that huge bubble of derivatives that led to the global financial crisis of 2008." (“World History of Corruption”, paragraph 20.5).

“American economic institutions are taking an active part in another dubious process that has assumed enormous proportions in the United States - the transformation of the financial reporting system of companies and banks. In the past, America had a fairly strict and conservative reporting system (GAAP), which did not allow speculative transactions without their reflection in the balance sheets. This no longer suited the new financial “elite” that seized power over the country at the end of the 20th century. Therefore, under its pressure, and with the active participation of economic institutions, the transformation of the once rigid GAAP system began. For example, as G. Reisegger points out, in the early 2000s, American banks had in their assets a huge amount of derivatives, that is, speculative securities: on average, in a ratio of 9: 1 to all banking assets, and for some banks this ratio reached 40: 1. Such a gigantic bias towards speculative papers would have been impossible, the Austrian scientist points out, if banks had adhered to the previous conservative reporting standards. But under pressure from the leadership of the Federal Reserve System (a private oligarchic structure that plays the role of a central bank in the United States) and with the active participation of economic institutions, new reporting principles for banks were imposed, which allowed them to accumulate this huge financial bubble (pp. 423-428). The result was a number of bank failures in 2008 (Wachovia, Lehman Brothers and others), and there could have been many more if not for the huge injection of money from the US government. This is not the only area of ​​accounting relief - another area is, for example, the enormous capacity to inflate the intangible asset bubble of companies and banks in the US, resulting in their position being greatly improved when in fact they may be on the brink bankruptcy.

Finally, another area of ​​activity of the lie factory in the United States is the transformation of the national statistics system. As G. Reisegger points out, in the USA, in fast-growing industries (computers, communications) today they use the so-called. a “hedonic” approach to assessing inflation, that is, they recalculate “increased quality” (for example, an increase in computer power) in such a way that they record a sharp reduction in the cost of products. Due to this, the American inflation index is greatly reduced and GDP growth is overestimated (estimated by 1/3 only due to the “hedonic” approach) compared, for example, with Germany. Thus, according to American statistics, prices for computers from 1990 to 1999 decreased by 80%, and according to German statistics - only by 20%. Such a price gap could not exist in principle, since computers around the world cost approximately the same, but this approach in American statistics led to an underestimation of inflation in the United States and an overestimation of GDP growth there during this period. This fact was so glaring that even the leadership of the German Bundesbank in 2000 expressed doubts that real, and not “inflated” economic growth was taking place in the United States (as a result of which the dollar-euro exchange rate sharply increased) (pp. 458-459 ).

In this regard, a number of economists today question the available data on the growth of GDP and industrial production in the United States in recent decades. They believe that this is not economic growth, but hidden inflation, and that in fact there has been no economic growth in the United States for a long time" ("World History of Corruption", paragraph 20.5).

13. Modern liberal economics is not a science, but a huge propaganda machine

“The structure of modern Western propaganda includes not only television, newspapers and other media. It also includes a whole network of powerful research centers in the field of economics and other social sciences, which are financed mainly by large corporations. In general, they represent a powerful ideological and propaganda a machine that makes the one that once existed in the USSR look like a child's bicycle. It relies on a wide network of private foundations that finance certain areas of ideology and propaganda or “business projects”, and employs hundreds of thousands of people .

This system employs a lot of competent, intelligent and first-class specialists, scientists and practitioners in the field of economics, social, historical and other social sciences. But with all the apparent diversity of the ideas, conclusions and proposals they express, they are all based on several false basic postulates, that is, on such “axioms” that contradict the facts. The most important of these false “axioms” is the impact of free trade and globalization on the economy and social development of individual countries and the entire world. All these experts are convinced of a positive influence, which contradicts all available facts and conclusions of economic historians who have studied this problem, and which was shown above in relation to all known periods of human history.

The second distinctive feature is that they love only success stories, in particular, they love to promote the experience of countries that have become successful in a given period of time. For example, after World War II, Western European countries became such successful countries, then Japan, then (1980s) “newly industrialized countries” (South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia), then (1990s and 2000s) years) – China. And they have little or no interest in the crises experienced by these countries (the same Western European countries, Japan, Malaysia, etc.) after the period of “success” ended there. They are also of little interest in the problems of unemployment and the problems of development of the world or individual regions as a whole. Meanwhile, as D. Harvey points out, unemployment in Latin American countries in the 1980s averaged 29%, and in the 1990s it was already 44% (p. 208); in most African countries and the poorest countries in Asia it is even higher, and in Eastern European countries it is close to this level. In the USA itself, even in the prosperous period that preceded the one that began in 2007-2008. During the crisis, according to official statistics, 40% of the adult population did not work (p.56). At the same time, the average annual growth rate of world GDP per capita in the 1960s was 3.5%, in the 1970s it decreased to 2.4%, in the 1980s - to 1.4%, in the 1990s - to 1.1% (p.206), and in the 2000s they may even fall to zero, and this despite the fact that population growth in the world has also fallen sharply to almost zero. Judging by this trend, both the population of the Earth and its GDP will soon begin to decrease - the world will soon begin to gradually destroy what has been created over centuries. Thus, half the world's population is forced to sit unemployed, idle and vegetate in poverty, while the world economy not only does not develop, contrary to Western economic theories that unemployment is good for the economy, but it is about to happen before our eyes will begin to fall apart, and with it world civilization will begin to fall apart.

But all this does not interest American experts in the field of economics and other social sciences, who today number in the tens or even hundreds of thousands, but they do not write about anything like that. As D. Harvey himself, who cited these figures, points out, “If these facts were widely known, the praise of neoliberalization and associated globalization would be much more moderate” (p. 209). This entire army serves those who pay them money, and therefore writes and says what the customers (the world oligarchy) demand, and the interests of the peoples of the world, including the people of the United States themselves, do not interest them" ("World History of Corruption", p. 20.5)

"D. Harvey even managed to trace the process of creating this factory of lies...

This grandiose “business project” in the field of ideology involved the financial power of most large American corporations. The companies that financed this “business project,” as D. Harvey points out, accounted for “about half of the US GDP” in the 1970s, and their annual expenses on it amounted to about $900 million, which was colossal at that time amount. About half of these funds came from corporations that were among the 500 largest companies in the world (as ranked by Fortune magazine). Such analytical (and at the same time propaganda) institutions as the Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institute, Center for the Study of American Business, American Enterprise Institute and others were created for this program. In addition to this funding from corporations, part of the funds was directed from individuals - multi-billionaires who created their own private foundations for financing social sciences (such as Olin, Scaife, Smith Richardson, Pew Charitable Trust, etc.) (p. 64).

The factory of lies created in this way worked according to the same principles as described above. First, it was necessary to create a beautiful economic theory (beneficial to customers), and then ensure its propaganda and drumming into the minds of both economists and the population as unusually smart and correct. This could be achieved, for example, through the simultaneous mentioning, discussion and citing of this theory by all scientific and propaganda institutions participating in this “business project”, as well as through its direct propaganda on television. It was at this time in the United States, like mushrooms after rain, that more and more new economic concepts began to emerge, which immediately gained extraordinary fame and popularity. For example, the worldwide popularity of Milton Friedman's monetarist theory in the 1980s might have rivaled Marxism at its peak. Friedman was then considered the founder of the entire “monetarist school”; following the guidelines of this school, the USA, Great Britain and other Western countries carried out their reforms in the 1980s; The IMF has taken his concept as the basis for its advice to countries on how to conduct their domestic policies. Even Russian reformers Gaidar and Chubais carried out monetarist reforms in Russia in the 1990s, following Friedman's theories and recipes. Meanwhile, as D. Harvey points out, this theory was also “promoted” within the framework of the “business project” described above: with the money of one of the private foundations created by multi-billionaires (Scaife), a television version of Milton’s book was created in 1977 Friedman Free to Choose and the propaganda of this book and the monetarist concept on television began (p. 64-65)" ("World History of Corruption", paragraph 20.5).

The main principle of liberalism is not absolute freedom in general (no form of government allows absolute freedom, wrote J. Locke), but maximum freedom to think, profess any religion, express and discuss personal views, organize in parties, engage in business activities, sell goods (including their own labor) and receive remuneration, choose their own rulers, as well as a new form of government if the existing one contradicts the free development of society.

According to the views of Locke and Rousseau, man has a natural right to maximum freedom, and the state is obliged to protect it, just as people have the right to protect their freedom from the state. Consistent supporters of such views were D. Hume, I. Kant, T. Jefferson, B. Franklin, C. Montesquieu, P. Condorcet and others. The ideas of natural law were reflected in the American Declaration of Independence (1776), in the French Declaration of Human Rights and citizen (1789), as well as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Historically, the idea of ​​freedom is associated with people’s relationship to property, which determines their social status and the amount of social benefits they receive. The moral dilemma of the attitude of individuals to social benefits, which philosophers and educators tried to solve, was first conceptualized in the context of contemporary society by A. Smith. He believed that a system based on the natural freedom of the individual, freedom of the market and competition leads to the well-being of the people. He sees the free competition of self-interested individuals as a source of economic growth, social order and public good. Individualism does not lead to chaos, but to order and prosperity.

In his work “The Wealth of Nations...” Smith expresses the idea that the market is regulated independently in the process of competition between private producers, and through it lies the path to economic growth and abundance. D. Ricardo (1772-1823) saw the spring of economic growth in the accumulation of capital. Economic policy should be aimed at facilitating and promoting such accumulation. He was convinced that economic freedom promotes maximum profits, which can become the main source of invested capital.

Entrepreneurship leads to maximum economic growth, because profit forms the basis of savings that the state needs for development. In "Treatise on Political Economy" (1803) J.B. Sayem formulated the law of the market, according to which there can be no shortage or excess of goods in the economy. If overproduction occurs in one sector of the economy, and underproduction in others, then a fall in prices in some sectors and an increase in others forces entrepreneurs to look for ways to correct the situation. People produce goods for exchange. Thus, production itself generates demand and cannot but satisfy it. I. Bentham, S. Mill and others were supporters of the creation of a social system based on the democratic principles of majority rule.

According to Bentham and his followers, such a social system is capable of maximizing general welfare and distributing it as fairly as possible. Bentham's utilitarian philosophy differs significantly from the classical liberal views of the 18th century, which proclaimed individual freedom as the ultimate goal of public policy. He saw the possibility of potential conflict in the idea that only the activity of the individual can contribute to well-being. It is possible, for example, that the actions of a person pursuing personal goals may harm another, and thus limit his freedom. In addition, human society is organized by people themselves. social institutions. The conscious activity of people can also contribute to the emergence of social forms that will allow them to live more justly. Thus, classical liberalism, through Bentham's utilitarianism, allows state intervention in public life for the sake of social good.

Economic liberalism advocates freedom of enterprise, private property rights, the right to inheritance, free competition and non-interference by the state in the economic activities of individuals. The main task He sees the state in ensuring that it does not impede the development of initiative and entrepreneurship of economic entities, but helps them. The state should not encroach on economic freedom, but should support those who have taken responsibility and risk for their own business. Threats, restrictions and strict laws have never contributed to the effective development of the economy, but led to the opposite result.

If the freedom of individuals in the right to choose the type of activity, in the right to create industrial or commercial enterprises is limited, one can hardly talk about a liberal economy in general. Liberalism seeks to limit state intervention in the economy as much as possible and sees private individuals as the main subjects of economic life. Political liberalism recognizes citizens’ right to participate in public life, which is exercised in the process of electing the head of state, representatives of central and local government bodies, as well as the right to unite in public, political, professional and other organizations and parties.

Citizens are guaranteed freedom of conscience, speech, press, and the right to choose their place of residence. Although political liberalism is associated with the idea of ​​a democratic state, liberal economics is also compatible with authoritarian forms of political power. Neoclassical liberal economic theory, which appeared at the end of the 19th century, found its logical basis in the concept of a pure capitalist economy by L. Walras (1834-1910). Walras seeks to go beyond specific social and political realities and consider exclusively problems of production and distribution of resources.

However, theoretically, Walras's concept could not explain the unstable development of capitalism in the period between the two world wars. The leading English economist and political figure J.M. Keynes (1883-1946) filled this gap and proposed a new economic theory aimed at preserving and revitalizing the market economy in Europe. According to Keynes, capitalism is unstable; it has an inherent tendency towards stagnation, accompanied by chronic unemployment. Therefore, government intervention in the economic sphere is necessary for a capitalist economy to function effectively.

Keynes was a proponent of an active role for the state in finance, believing that the state's attention to government spending, the tax system, external debt, and maintaining an equal balance between savings and spending could help stabilize prices and the economy. In the post-war period, economic theories affirmed the view that the state, by creating budget expenditures and taxation, could achieve economic stability and overcome the trend towards stagnation and unemployment.

Followers of Keynes also recognize the need for state regulation of the capitalist economy. Modern neoliberal economic concepts (Friedman, Hayek, Lepage) proceed from the fact that it is not capitalism that has exhausted its capabilities, but government intervention over the past decades has prevented the normal functioning of capitalism. In their opinion, true capitalism does not yet exist; it will appear only when the functioning of the economy becomes sufficiently liberal. A capitalist economy, which is based on competition, self-regulates under the law of supply and demand.

Thus, government intervention in the economy must be limited to respecting the laws of the functioning of capitalism. Liberalism is a conscious alternative to authoritarian and totalitarian views on the state and its role in economic and political life society. Liberalism opposes socialism, believing that any interference in the economic activity of the individual is contrary to the principle of free competition. According to liberal philosopher Philip Nemo, "social justice is deeply immoral."

Liberalism is one of the so-called “basic ideologies” that has a tradition behind it and continues to “work” today. At the same time, liberalism is subject to sharp criticism from both conservative circles and left-radical political forces.

The financial crisis has forced us to rethink many approaches to assessing the creditworthiness of enterprises, as a result of which we have to analyze in more detail and thoughtfully the old standard indicators and ratios. As the subject of such revaluation, we propose to consider working capital and the turnover ratios of its elements - inventories, receivables and payables.

First, let's recall the theory to clarify the terminology used. A business in any field of activity begins with a certain amount of cash, through which the required amount of resources is acquired, the production process and sales of products are organized. In the process of its movement, capital passes through three successive stages of circulation: procurement, production and sales.

The faster the capital makes the circuit, the more the enterprise sells products with the same amount of capital over a certain period of time. A delay in the movement of funds at any stage leads to a slowdown in capital turnover, requires additional investment of funds and can cause a deterioration in the financial condition of the enterprise. Therefore, turnover analysis is of great importance for effective working capital management.

Inventory turnover

In most theoretical sources, this coefficient is calculated as the ratio of the cost of production to the average

for the period, the value of inventories, work in progress and finished goods in the warehouse (inventory turnover by value - OZ):

Oz = C / (Znp + Zkp) / 2,

where C is the cost of products produced in the billing period;

Znp, Zkp - the amount of inventory balances, work in progress and finished goods in the warehouse at the beginning and end of the period.

Note. From school, the familiar formula “Money - Product - Money” in an expanded interpretation takes on next view: "Money - Purchasing - Production - Finished products - Sales - Money."

The total cost of goods sold during a given period, usually a year (it is preferable to take cost of goods sold rather than sales volume, since the latter includes gross profit, which tends to inflate the turnover ratio), divided by the average inventory over the period the same period, gives a number showing how many times the product has been turned around.

The reverse indicator is more visual and convenient for analysis - the inventory circulation period in days (Pos). It is calculated by the formula:

Pos = Tper / Oz,

where Tper is the duration of the period in days.

The higher the company's inventory turnover, the more efficient its activities are, the lower the need for working capital and the more stable the financial position of the enterprise, all other things being equal.

The calculated turnover periods for specific components of current assets and current liabilities have a real economic interpretation.

For example, an inventory turnover period of thirty days means that, given the current production volume in a given period of analysis, the enterprise has created inventories for 30 days.

Several types of inventory turnover are taken into account:

Turnover of each product item in quantitative terms (by pieces, by volume, by weight, etc.);

Turnover of each item of goods by value;

Turnover of a set of items or the entire inventory in quantitative terms;

Turnover of a set of items or the entire inventory by value.

Assessing turnover is the most important element of analyzing the efficiency with which an enterprise manages inventories. The acceleration of turnover is accompanied by additional involvement of funds into turnover, and the slowdown is accompanied by the diversion of funds from economic turnover, their relatively longer necrosis in inventories (otherwise - immobilization of own working capital). In addition, it is obvious that the company incurs additional costs for storing inventory, associated not only with warehouse costs, but also with the risk of damage and obsolescence of the goods.

As a result, when managing inventories, stale and slow-moving goods, which represent one of the main elements of immobilized (i.e., excluded from active economic circulation) working capital, must be subject to special control and audit.

In everyday Western banking practice, analysts usually use an alternative formula - the ratio of inventory to revenue multiplied by 365 days. The amount of inventory is taken at the end of the period, as it is usually assessed over time. The amount of inventory is correlated not with cost, but with revenue as one of the most important factors for credit analysis (this ensures a unified approach to companies that sell goods and services, because for the latter, most of the expenses are not at cost, but on general commercial and Administrative expenses). Many believe that correlation with cost gives a more accurate result, since there is a trading margin in revenue, which artificially increases turnover, but, on the other hand, this maintains the uniformity of the approach (for example, asset turnover is revenue divided by the amount of assets), In addition, this method is convenient when calculating the operating cycle.

Inventory turnover, days = Inventory / Sales x 365 (Inventory turnover period, in days = Inventory volume / Net revenue x 365).

In principle, it is possible that at the beginning of the period and at the end of the period, inventories are equal to zero. Then the turnover rate can be calculated by taking the average amount of inventory in the period (of course, if you have access to this data).

Previously, it was certainly believed that accelerating warehouse turnover was a good thing. Inventory turnover characterizes the mobility of funds that an enterprise invests in creating inventories: the faster the funds invested in inventories are returned to the enterprise in the form of proceeds from the sale of finished products, the higher the business activity of the organization. What does a more careful consideration of the processes occurring in the warehouse give us? Turnover in itself does not mean anything - you need to monitor the dynamics of changes in the ratio, taking into account the following factors:

The coefficient decreases - the warehouse is overstocked;

The coefficient is growing or very high (shelf life is less than one day) - working “on wheels”, which is fraught with the lack of goods in the warehouse.

In conditions of constant shortage, the average amount of warehouse stock can be equal to zero: for example, if demand is growing all the time, and the company does not have time to deliver goods. As a result, there are gaps in the warehouse, shortages of goods and unsatisfied demand. If the order size decreases, the costs of ordering, transporting and processing goods increase. Turnover increases, but availability problems remain. There are options for justifiably increasing warehouse stocks - during periods of high inflation or expectations of sharp changes in exchange rates, as well as in anticipation of seasonal peaks in purchasing activity.

If a company is forced to store in a warehouse goods of irregular demand, goods with a pronounced seasonality, then achieving high turnover is not an easy task. To ensure customer satisfaction, the company will be forced to stock a wide range of hard-to-find items, which will slow down overall inventory turnover. It is also possible that the supplier provides a good discount (for example, 5 - 10%) for a significant volume plus a significant deferred payment (in a crisis it is difficult to refuse such an offer).

Also, for a store, the terms of delivery of goods play an important role: if the purchase of goods is made using its own funds, then turnover is very important and indicative. If on credit, then own funds are invested to a lesser extent or not invested at all - then low turnover of goods is not critical, the main thing is that the loan repayment period does not exceed the turnover rate. If the goods are taken mainly on terms of sale, then first of all it is necessary to proceed from the volume of warehouse space and turnover for such a store is the last most important indicator.

In fact, it is useful to remember more often that numbers alone do not tell you anything about the effectiveness of inventory management. For example, in retail trade, bread and expensive cognac have completely different indicators - the turnover of bread is several times higher than that of cognac. Obviously, bread has one “task” in the store, and cognac has a completely different one, and perhaps the store earns more from one bottle of cognac than from bread sales in a week. Money is the only and universal meter, and not kilograms, pieces, cubic meters, pallets, etc. Companies invest some amounts in goods and want to get the maximum return on them (return on investment). For any product, profit = markup coefficient x cost x sales volume, therefore, profit directly depends on markup (margin) and turnover.

The relationship between two parameters - margin (trading margin) and turnover - is presented by E.A. Buzukova in the article “Inventory turnover” by introducing a matrix (Fig. 1).

The most interesting products are those with high turnover and high markups. The assortment may also contain goods with low turnover, but this must be compensated for by a high markup. Products with low margins can be included in the assortment provided that they have good turnover, that is, the company does not spend money on selling these products.

If there are goods with low markups and poor turnover, then you can:

Take them out of stock. However, “mechanical cleaning” is dangerous because, along with illiquid assets, you can “throw away” both new goods and related goods, components, or image goods. Therefore, you need to analyze the history of this product and understand its role in the overall assortment;

Convert them to the “high markup - low turnover” square. You need to understand what kind of product it is that is selling slowly. Perhaps this is an expensive image product and it was positioned incorrectly and received less profit;

Translate them into the “low markup - high turnover” square, stimulating sales or reducing the amount of inventory. After all, managers have two pedals: “gas” (sales speed) and “brake” (reducing inventory). Unlike a car driver, a manager can press both pedals at once.

In general, firms strive to increase inventory turnover in order to obtain the largest sales volume with a smaller warehouse area and lower inventory holding costs. High inventory turnover requires stricter inventory control, subject to appropriate margins (markups). But achieving high turnover is not an easy task for large distributors, since they are forced to store part of the inventory of items with irregular demand in warehouses. If for cost-effective trade it is necessary to maintain a high level of inventory turnover, then to ensure demand for any product included in the trade nomenclature, it is necessary to store a wide range of rarely sold goods, which slows down the overall inventory turnover. Nevertheless, fast turnover has many advantages: increased sales volumes; reducing the risk of obsolescence, damage to goods and reducing trade margins; improving the mood of sales workers; increase free funds that can be used to realize new market opportunities; reducing operating costs and increasing asset turnover.

Accounts receivable turnover

In theory, the accounts receivable turnover ratio is calculated as the ratio of sales revenue (VR) to the average amount of accounts receivable for the period (OR):

Odz = VR / (DZnp + DZkp) / 2,

where ДЗнп, ДЗкп - accounts receivable at the beginning and end of the period.

The receivables turnover period (Receivable) is calculated using the formula:

Podz = Tper / Odz.

The receivables turnover period characterizes average duration deferred payments provided to customers.

Since the accounts receivable, in addition to the obligations of buyers and customers, also include the debt of the founders for contributions to the authorized capital, the obligations of third parties for advances issued, some distortions are possible in the turnover of accounts receivable from buyers that interests us most.

Accounts receivable management primarily involves monitoring the turnover of funds in settlements. Of great importance for reducing payment terms are the selection of potential buyers and the determination of the terms of payment for goods provided for in contracts. The selection is carried out using informal criteria: compliance with payment discipline in the past, the buyer’s forecast financial capabilities to pay for the volume of goods requested by him, the level of current solvency, the level of financial stability, the economic and financial conditions of the selling enterprise (overstocking, the degree of need for cash, etc.). P.).

We can conditionally distinguish three fundamental types of an enterprise’s credit policy in relation to product buyers: conservative, moderate and aggressive.

The conservative (tight) type of credit policy of an enterprise is aimed at minimizing credit risk. In this case, the enterprise does not strive to obtain high additional profits by expanding the volume of product sales. Alfa-Bank comes to mind as an example: even O. Deripaska’s structures have to repay debts.

A moderate type of credit policy of an enterprise focuses on the average level of credit risk when selling products with deferred payment. Most trading companies that are at the stage of stable development (not a new aggressive company, but not old monopolies) can be classified as this type.

An aggressive (or preferential) type of credit policy is an expansion of the volume of sales of products on credit, regardless of high level credit risk. What comes to mind here is not a company, but an entire country - China, which has flooded half the world with its cheap goods.

In the process of choosing the type of credit policy, the following main factors should be taken into account:

The general state of the economy, which determines the financial capabilities of buyers and their level of solvency;

The current situation commodity market, the state of demand for the enterprise’s products;

The potential ability of the enterprise to increase the volume of production while expanding the possibilities for its sale by providing credit;

Legal conditions for ensuring the collection of receivables;

Financial capabilities of the enterprise in terms of diversion of funds into current accounts receivable;

The financial mentality of the owners and managers of the enterprise, their attitude to the level of acceptable risk in the process of implementation economic activity.

In Western banking practice, analysts use the same formula, but they take not the average value, but at the end of the period (sometimes minus doubtful accounts receivable) for the purpose of subsequent comparison with previous periods, and more often the turnover is calculated in days:

Receivables turnover, days = Receivables / Sales x 365 (Receivables turnover period, in days = (Accounts receivable - Doubtful accounts receivable) / Net revenue x 365).

During the crisis, the interpretation of the receivables turnover indicator also became ambiguous. In general, the acceleration of turnover over a number of periods is considered a positive trend. But too strict control over the repayment of receivables can lead to the loss of customers, too soft - to the emergence of a shortage of working capital and a weakening of the payment discipline of debtors, many of whom, according to the old Russian tradition, delay payment “until the last minute”. Many companies have resorted to factoring, but the high cost of this service (especially without the right of recourse), according to market participants, does not allow outsourcing the collection of receivables. Almost all companies have formed internal credit committees and collection procedures for current receivables, providing for timing and forms of preliminary and subsequent reminders to customers about the payment date; possibilities and conditions for prolonging debt on a loan; conditions for initiating bankruptcy proceedings against insolvent debtors.

We should not forget about the presence of associated companies in the regions, since in the pre-crisis years, most large companies that initially arose in megacities were actively growing “in width”, creating branch networks in Russian regions. And part of the receivables on the balance sheet of the parent companies represents the debt of “poor relatives from the provinces” who really had a harder time during the crisis. If sales in Moscow in most markets fell by 10 - 15%, then in the regions - by 20 - 30%. Therefore, in order to maintain the branch network and strategic partners, companies had to take a flexible approach to control over receivables.

Accounts payable turnover

In theory, the accounts payable turnover ratio (Okz) is calculated as the ratio of sales revenue to the average amount of accounts payable for the period:

Okz = C / (KZnp + KZkp) / 2,

where KZnp, KZkp - accounts payable at the beginning and end of the period.

The turnover period of accounts payable (Pos) is calculated using the formula:

Pos = Tper / Okz.

The turnover period of accounts payable characterizes the average duration of deferred payments provided to the company by suppliers. The larger it is, the more actively the enterprise finances current production activities at the expense of direct participants in the production process (through the use of deferred payment of bills, regulatory deferment of taxes, etc.).

Since accounts payable, in addition to obligations to suppliers and customers (for material assets supplied, work performed and services rendered), include obligations for advances received, to employees for wages, to social funds, to the budget for all types of payments, some distortions are possible What interests us most is the turnover of invoices payable to suppliers.

In Western banking practice, analysts also use a slightly modified formula: the ratio of accounts payable to revenue multiplied by 365 days. The amount of accounts payable is taken at the end of the period, as it is usually assessed over time. The amount of inventory is correlated not with cost, but also with revenue:

Payables turnover, days = Payables / Sales x 365 (Accounts payable turnover period, in days = Accounts payable / Net revenue x 365).

The analysis of accounts payable, in turn, must be supplemented with an analysis of accounts receivable, and if the accounts receivable turnover is higher (i.e., the ratio is lower) than the accounts payable turnover, then this is a positive factor. In general, managing the movement of accounts payable is the establishment of such contractual relationships with suppliers that make the terms and amounts of payments to the latter dependent on the receipt of funds from customers.

We will not be mistaken if we say that in 2009 the possibility of deferring payments to suppliers was the “blue dream” of most Russian distributors. Many importing companies were indeed granted deferments by their Western suppliers, even longer than in 2008. Perhaps Russia has become a strategic market for many Western manufacturers, and in order to maintain their sales network in the vast Russian expanses, foreign suppliers agreed to more preferential terms . In relations between Russian suppliers and distributors, deferred payment in each case was decided individually: who needed it more, who could get a loan themselves and support the “subcontractor”, so as not to disrupt the entire chain from manufacturer to end consumer. There were many options.

Operating cycle

In normal banking practice, the operating cycle (in days) is calculated as inventory turnover plus accounts receivable turnover minus accounts payable turnover (in days) (Fig. 2).

The logic of the presented scheme is as follows. The operating cycle characterizes the total time during which financial resources are stored in inventories and accounts receivable. Since the company pays supplier bills with a time lag, the financial cycle (the time during which funds are diverted from circulation) is reduced due to the average time of circulation of accounts payable. The reduction in operating and financial cycles over time is considered a positive trend. If a reduction in the operating cycle can be done by accelerating the production process and accounts receivable turnover, then the financial cycle can be shortened both due to these factors and due to some non-critical slowdown in accounts payable turnover.

Of course, all turnover indicators should be considered taking into account the qualitative characteristics of the enterprise, such as:

Scope of activity of the enterprise;

Industry affiliation;

The scale of the enterprise's activities;

Quality of assets, namely the quality and cost of goods sold;

General economic situation in the country;

Quality of enterprise asset management.

Nevertheless, the basic approach to assessing turnover is as follows: the shorter the turnover period, the more efficient the commercial activities of the enterprise and the higher its business activity.

What did credit analysts see as a result in the 2009 interim reports? If we do not take into account the 3 - 4 least affected industries (oil, communications, food and pharmaceuticals) and some lucky ones for whom the crisis is their mother, during the recession there was a deterioration in turnover associated with a decrease in production volumes and sales of products, however inventories and accounts receivable declined at an even slower pace.

We list some standard ways to accelerate capital turnover:

Increasing the level of marketing research aimed at accelerating the promotion of goods from manufacturer to consumer (including market research, improving the product and forms of its promotion, forming the correct pricing policy, optimizing the assortment depending on demand, etc.);

Reducing the business cycle through sales promotion (advertising campaigns, discounts, seasonal sales, loyalty programs, etc.);

Negotiating with existing and potential suppliers on the provision of deferred payments;

Optimization of logistics processes in order to reduce transport, warehouse and similar costs;

Reducing the duration of the production cycle due to intensification of production (use latest technologies, increasing the level of labor productivity, etc.);

Improving the organization of logistics for the purpose of uninterrupted supplies and reducing the time spent in inventory;

Accelerating the process of shipping products and processing settlement documents.

The effect achieved as a result of accelerated turnover is expressed primarily in an increase in product output without additional attraction of financial resources. In addition, due to the acceleration of capital turnover, the amount of profit increases, since it usually returns to its original monetary form in increments. If the production and sales of products are unprofitable, then the acceleration of the turnover of funds leads to a deterioration in financial results and the “eating up” of capital. Thus, we must strive not only to accelerate the movement of capital at all stages of the circulation, but also to its maximum return, which is expressed in an increase in the amount of profit per ruble of capital.

Working capital

In theory, working capital is the capital invested by a company in its current operations during each operating cycle. We have already examined the main elements of working capital - inventories, receivables and payables - and approaches to analyzing their turnover. It remains to add that the features of working capital management are determined by the structural affiliation of business entities. If trade organizations have a high share of goods, and industrial enterprises have a high share of raw materials, then financial corporations have a predominant share of cash and cash equivalents.

Speaking about working capital management, we must not forget about the analysis of the state of financing of the enterprise's current assets, the purpose of which is to assess the level of sufficiency of financial resources invested in current assets, as well as the degree of efficiency of forming the structure of sources of their financing from the standpoint of the impact on the financial stability of the enterprise. The most common way to replenish working capital (in addition to trade loans and deferred payments) to avoid cash gaps before the crisis was the use of revolving lines of credit (for example, secured by goods in circulation).

In Western banking practice, the concept of net working capital is more often used, calculated as the difference between current assets and short-term liabilities. Under normal operating conditions of business entities, the value of current assets is higher than the value of current liabilities, that is, the amount of working capital exceeds accounts payable. Therefore, for many years, negative net working capital was viewed as a negative factor. How has the approach to the amount of working capital changed recently?

Opinion. M. Kachaeva, Senior Portfolio Management Analyst, Royal Bank of Scotland CJSC

Analysis of asset turnover is an integral part of the financial analysis of the borrower. Asset turnover is perhaps the best way to assess the real effectiveness of a company's operating activities (provided, of course, that the statements fairly reflect its financial position). Often, financial managers tend to focus primarily on quickly increasing the operating profitability of the business (even short-term), because this is what shareholders expect from them, without thinking that controlling expenses and manipulating non-cash reporting items alone will not get you far. Thus, adequate turnover indicators make it possible to assess, among other things, the maturity and presence of a long-term development strategy of the company, which, of course, provides additional comfort for the lender when making a decision on issuing a loan.

When analyzing, it is preferable to evaluate any financial indicator not from the point of view of its compliance with certain standards, but rather in the context of the company’s real business. At the same time, it is certainly useful to compare the client’s performance with that of its competitors and with the overall industry average.

In addition, it is important to understand what is behind each indicator. For example, for a large aviation enterprise with a long production cycle, an inventory turnover of 180 days may be absolutely acceptable, but for a retail chain such a value may indicate serious problems with the sale of goods.

Analysis of indicators of business activity (turnover) of enterprises at the peak of the crisis revealed trends such as overstocking, growth in overdue receivables and payables, the emergence/increase of “bad” debts, etc., which had not previously been observed and, in fact, were not seriously analyzed . At present, when the severity of the economic situation has subsided somewhat, we can say that the turnover of current assets of most companies has stabilized. Nevertheless, it is clear that in the future, analysts should look more closely at these indicators to adequately assess the financial condition of companies.

Let's consider an example: during a crisis, company A sells mainly on prepayment (receivables have decreased), agreed with its suppliers that it will pay for supplies within three months (the creditor is long), and has reduced inventories to the minimum required, leaving only popular inexpensive goods in the assortment (inventories have decreased, but their turnover has increased). From a business perspective in a falling market, Company A successfully emerges from the crisis, while old valuation methods predict imminent default: net working capital is less than zero (or liquidity ratio is less than 1) and continues to decrease. In this case, of course, it is necessary to evaluate all factors together. If company A's sales are falling faster than the market, then perhaps it needs to support its customers a little by providing a deferment or slightly expand its assortment. In analysis (and, probably, in life in general) there are fewer and fewer absolute values ​​- everything is relative and interconnected, and the interpretation of indicators depends on the specific goal and “risk appetite” of a credit organization or financial institution.

I would like to add that the lack of long statistical series for Russian industrial sectors does not allow us to formulate turnover standards for working capital elements, which could be taken as a basis for comparative analysis. In American and European practice, such data are sometimes published, and the table shows such an example.

The book truly marks the birth of liberal economics. Here are the features. characteristic of market liberalism:

· freedom of economic activity, i.e. free market competition of goods, services and valuable papers without interference in the purchase and sale process of the state or local authorities.

· equality of market subjects;

· economic responsibility and risk of entrepreneurs. This forces them to be vigilant about resources, proactive, active, resourceful economic activity;

· economic competition. competition is necessary, it contributes to faster progress in production;

· free pricing, i.e. the process of formation of prices for goods and the price system as a whole in a market economy occurs spontaneously, prices are formed under the influence of supply and demand in a competitive environment

· universality of the market, i.e. there is a reduction in restrictions on entering the world market;

· market openness, i.e. free movement of goods and capital across the border;

The main provisions of his theory:

· Market liberalism or market self-regulation based on free prices, the principle of economic liberalism;

· The action of the “invisible hand”: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect to receive our dinner, but from their observance of their own interests.”

· “Economic man”, i.e. every individual is an egoist, personal interest prevails over public interest;

· Division of labor and specialization in different types of work, increasing labor productivity and improving the welfare of society;

· Development of the labor theory of value

"Invisible Hand"

The main economic argument for a market system is that it promotes the efficient allocation of resources. According to this thesis, a competitive market system directs resources to produce those goods and services that society needs most. It dictates the use of the most effective methods for combining resources for production and promotes the development and implementation of new, more efficient production technologies. The "invisible hand" thus controls personal gain. It provides society with production the largest number necessary goods from available resources. The market is a barometer showing what to produce in what quantity and for whom.

"Economic Man"

The subject of the teachings of Adam Smith becomes the “Economic Man” - aimed at the embodiment of personal interests and inspired by his own egoism, and thereby benefiting society.