Let us recall that one of the guarantees of depriving society of economic sovereignty is the construction of a system of uncontested higher education in the field of sociology, economics and finance based on deliberately inadequate theories. The study of the entire system as a whole, even in a distorted form, is not included in the educational standards of any specialty: lawyers know only the texts of laws and some of the law enforcement practice; economists know accounting, business planning at the scale of a private enterprise (micro-level), scraps of jurisprudence related to economics and finance; engineers - technique, technology, standards, etc.; managers-managers do not really know anything (their ideas about management are formed on the basis of defective theories and demagoguery, and the rest, in their opinion, should be known by their subordinate specialists).
The discrepancy between the real economic systems of states of the liberal market economic model and the "economic theories" on which higher education in economics and finance, political science and public administration is built was pointed out by J. K. Galbraith in 1973 in his book "Economic Theories and the goals of society”.
There are three main economic theses of bourgeois liberalism:
- Private property is sacred.
- Everything is sold and everything is bought directly or indirectly, and money is the equivalent of the value of everything: the only question is the price, as well as the legality or illegality of the purchase and sale transaction.
- The “invisible hand of the market” will regulate everything in the economy in the best possible way, if it is not interfered with.
Everything else in their views is an explanation and detailing of these provisions.
It is believed that the principles of building a liberal market economy today are best expressed in the so-called "Washington Consensus".
Promotional video:
The term "Washington Consensus" was coined in 1989 by the American economist John Williamson. There are no generally accepted formulations and the Washington Consensus, since in the works of J. Williamson himself, his followers and commentators, the formulations have changed over time. Nevertheless, regardless of variations in specific formulations, it was precisely the spirit of the Washington Consensus "long before J. Williamson expressed it lexically, throughout the second half of the twentieth century, defined the principles of involvement in the process of globalization of the economic systems of states -" problematic "for the United States and the West as a whole (mainly developing and post-socialist). These, as well as the number of its victims, include the post-Soviet RF, other post-Soviet states, and not only the countries of Latin America,in relation to which the "Washington Consensus" was first formulated by J. Williamson in the last years of the existence of the USSR.
Not sinning against the spirit of the Washington Consensus, its principles can be expressed as follows:
1. Budgetary discipline. The states should, if not eliminate, then reduce the budget deficit to such a minimum that would be acceptable for private capital.
2. Special focus of state budget expenditures. Subsidies to consumers and subsidies to producers should be kept to a minimum. The government should only spend money on primary health care, primary education and infrastructure development.
3. Tax policy. The tax base should be as broad as possible, but the tax rates should be moderate.
4. Interest rates. Interest rates on a loan should be formed in the domestic financial markets, and the state should not interfere in this process. The interest offered to depositors should stimulate their deposits in banks and curb capital flight.
5. Exchange rate. Countries should introduce an exchange rate for their currencies that promotes their exports by making the export prices of their products more competitive.
6. Trade liberalism. Import quotas should be abolished and replaced by customs tariffs. Customs tariffs on imports should be minimal and should not be imposed on those goods, the import of which is necessary for the production of goods in the country for subsequent export from it (i.e., we are talking about stimulating the import of components of more complex products, technological equipment, technologies, etc.). goods necessary for the subsequent satisfaction of the interests of external consumers at the expense of the production potential of the importing country).
7. Foreign direct investment. A policy should be adopted to encourage and attract capital and technological knowledge from abroad. Competition conditions for foreign and local firms should be the same.
8. Privatization. The privatization of state enterprises should be encouraged in every possible way.
9. Deregulation. Excessive government regulation only generates corruption and discrimination against market participants who are unable to break through to the upper layers of the bureaucracy. We should strive to do away with government regulation of the economy and the public sector in the future.
10. Private property rights. These rights must be guaranteed with the constant strengthening of their protection. Both the legislative base and law enforcement practice should be subordinated to this. (Private enterprises are considered by adherents of liberalism to be more efficient than state ones. For liberals, this is an axiom that does not require proof or any criterion basis to confirm the validity of this "axiom."
The principles of the "Washington Consensus" (with the exception of the regulation of export-import operations and foreign exchange) were the basis of the economic systems of the bourgeois-liberal states before the "Great Depression", organized by the US Federal Reserve System in spite of the declarations about the goals of its organization. After it, scientifically and technologically advanced countries began to develop systems of state regulation of the economy throughout the entire time, until in the 1970s the fashion for "monetarism" was created and a new wave of struggle against state regulation began ("Reaganomics", the policy of privatization M Thatcher in Great Britain, Pinochet's reforms in Chile, etc.).
After the Second World War, the principles of the "Washington Consensus" formed the basis of the IMF's policy and US economic relations with "problem" states and with the "Third World" countries long before Williamson formulated them for the first time. But after that, the "Washington Consensus" began to be presented to society, politicians and economists as a scientifically grounded set of guarantees for the success of the state's economic development, which supposedly are as uncontested as the laws of nature.
The vanguard of liberal economic views today is the one that appeared in the 1950s. monetarism, developed by the Chicago School of Economics, personified by M. Friedman (1912 - 2006), and by the early 1970s. quite widespread in the political and business "elite" of developed and not very developed Western countries.
M. L. Khazin expressed an absolutely correct opinion about the scientific and methodological consistency of the views of monetarists, describing the monetarists as an international totalitarian sect:
“Questions about what economic theory is, how it relates to reality, the boundaries and possibilities of its application, methods of verification, etc., etc. have been an important part of philosophy since the earliest times. Many concepts have been developed on this topic, and all of them are aimed at enabling a more or less outside observer to understand how this or that theory objectively reflects the world. Unfortunately, as soon as it comes to the social sciences, all clever theories end and naked propaganda begins. (…)
And today we see that the liberal-monetarist "mafia" imposes, using all its capabilities to control the media, the expert community, international financial organizations, etc., etc., its theory on peoples and governments. And they would be happy to do something, but they are trapped, since any deviation from the "party line" leads to terrible criticism in the media (which is like death for modern politicians) in terms of "orientation to the marginalized", "lack of team and experience " etc.
Moreover, these are problems not only for Russia, but also for the world in general, and the United States in particular (…) … since the monetarists are bound by their ideological clichés, they assess the real mechanisms rather “crookedly” and the models they use today are completely inadequate."
But this characteristic also applies to all other currents of liberal economic thought of the twentieth century. An example of this kind of essentially anti-scientific sectarian propaganda is the elevation of the "Washington Consensus" to the rank of a "law of nature" on a global scale.
When analyzed from the standpoint of a fairly general management theory (DOTU), the recognition of the "Washington Consensus" as an uncontested, supposedly automatically working "law of nature" is a rejection of the economic sovereignty of the state and the transfer of power over its natural resources, production potential and the population of a transnational corporation of usurers. usurped banking on a global scale. In relation to her, after this, the whole society finds itself in the position of slaves - slaves and hostages.
Therefore, there is no need to talk about guarantees of full-fledged economic provision of individual rights and freedoms on the basis of a liberal-market economic model. It is not even necessary to talk about the minimum level of ensuring the economic security of the state and its population as a whole, i.e. on guarantees of economic support for the life of the overwhelming majority of families and people personally, regardless of their professionalism, conscientiousness in work and life, and even more so - on ensuring economic security in the continuity of generations.
This is exactly what the socio-political and economic practice of the post-Soviet RF has shown and shows. And the reasons for this are not in the notorious "soviet" of the population, not in the inability of the "soviet" to entrepreneurial activity and creativity ("creativity"), on which adherents of liberalism and "glamor" insist, but in the patterns of functioning of an unregulated market, objectively characteristic of it as a system …
If we analyze the socio-economic reality, it turns out that the liberal-market economic model is implemented in its entirety only in the most scientifically and technically backward states. And it is she who is the generator of the reproduction of their backwardness in the continuity of generations. Due to the properties of the liberal-market economic model, the entire set of urgent tasks of society cannot be solved on its basis, but it will create many problems - intra-social and biosphere-ecological, on a scale - both regional and global.
It is as a consequence of this that the pricing algorithm of the liberal market, subordinated to the satisfaction of many private interests in the multitude of instantly executed purchase and sale transactions, controls the formation of effective demand, the range of investments (their total volume and distribution by industry and region) so that the liberal market is not capable of either to what else, except from generation to generation to reproduce mass poverty and lack of culture, reaching the economic "self-genocide" of the population, against which the super-rich minority burns out their lives, exploiting the majority and complaining about its stupidity, anger and unwillingness to work for the system.
And in order to avoid conflicts in the management of the economy of society on the part of the state of this society and on the part of the trans-state community of usurers, the liberal market ideology insists on the delineation of powers between the state and the community of usurers so that the state serves the policy of the supra-state community of usurers. And the right to issue money in the liberal market model does not belong to the state treasury. Even if the legislation states that the emission is carried out by the central bank of the corresponding state, subject to its laws and working for its interests, and its leadership is appointed by this state,nevertheless, de facto, contrary to these declarations of the central bank, on the basis of denial of disclosures by default, it turns out to be an authorized representative of the usurious community on the territory of this state and acts beyond its control.
All this can be traced in the structure of the "ten commandments" of the "Washington Consensus", which allows us to conclude that it is an instrument for the elimination of the economic sovereignty of states subject to it, the destruction of their economic systems and the integration of their fragments into the global economic system controlled by the global community of usurers. usurped banking. Due to the dependence of people's lives on economic security, the adoption of the "Washington Consensus" by the politicians of the state turns its population into slaves-hostages, and politicians - into slaves, overseers of slaves.
By virtue of the above circumstances, statehood, committed openly or by default to a liberal market ideology, in principle cannot be democratic and sovereign, with all the consequences that follow from this fact for itself and the population subject to it.
"Introduction to constitutional law" of the USSR VP