Dangerous balance

A sudden resignation, it would seem, the unsinkable Minister of Finance once again showed that we have no indispensable people in our country. Despite the fact that Alexei Kudrin ruled the Ministry of the age of 12, despite the fact that he managed to achieve several deficiency budgets in a row, despite the fact that he managed to form a very large stabilization fund (reserve fund and future generation fund), thanks to which the 2008 crisis was completed more or less painlessly, and even though foreign specialized publications recognized him repeatedly the best The Minister of Finance of the Year, he was dismissed. In addition to personality-political reasons, there are also conceptual grain in this resignation-the role of a balanced budget in the national and world economics.

Protecting this balance Alexei Kudrin allowed himself at least two “strong” statements. Firstly, he announced a possible increase in taxes and the need to increase the retirement age (to reduce the budget of the pension fund without a deficit) and. Secondly, he questioned the opportunity to finance the state arms program until 2020, which is estimated at 20 trillion. rubles.

It is well known how wide segments of the population relate to an increase in retirement age. Moreover, the very possibility of raising the retirement age, it comes into one insurmountable obstacle - the average life expectancy. In Russia, for men, it is 63 years old, which with the current retirement age of 60 years leaves a very small field for maneuver. There is simply nowhere to increase the retirement age, unless, of course, to assume that the male part of the population should not receive pensions at all, dying immediately upon reaching a new retirement age.

A similar increase in the retirement age for women would not lead to such radical consequences (in women, the average life expectancy is 75 years), but it would still create certain inconvenience. After retirement, many women continue to work, but already in the role of grandchildren’s nannies, giving their parents the opportunity to work in full force, not worrying about what is happening to the child. And the destruction of this order would probably not add the popularity of state power.

The minister aggravated his provisions, saying that the budget is not enough funds to finance the arms program. The point is not only that this conflicts with the foreign policy of the ruling tandem, which is active in all kinds of events throughout the globe, which implies the presence of powerful armed forces. The arms program also has an intra -economic component. It is clear that when it is executed, a large number of enterprises of the defense industry will be involved, and the workers employed on them will receive more or less guaranteed wages, and management will be very decent income. Naturally, an extensive weapons program receives active support from below, and this could not but be taken into account by the current government.

In addition, almost any armed conflict leads to an increase in oil prices and to an increase in demand in service. And Russia, as you know, is an exporter of both. Since constant armed conflicts support oil and gas prices at a high level, and stimulate the supply of weapons abroad, Russian companies will receive additional income from the export of hydrocarbons and weapons. And these additional income of companies will allow you to receive additional tax revenues, which will probably partly cover budget expenses for the arms program.

But the activities of Alexei Kudrin are not in vain in the international economic circles. His views are largely close to the expert mainstream, quite critical of budget deficit.

One of the most traditional tips from this expert environment following events in the world's world economy: the United States needs to change the current economic model, which is based on consumer loans, a chronic state budget deficit and a chronic payment balance shortage.

Of course, the United States is really best to start reducing the debt load right now, and not to continue to live, occupying the whole world, and wait until they begin to provide new loans, and American economic agents will no longer be able to maintain the previous level of consumption and investment. However, when using this council, it is necessary to take into account the recent historical experience. Otherwise, the reduction in the specific gravity in the global credit market of such a large borrower as the United States will lead to an equally large reduction in US share in the world market market, which will cost this market very expensive. And this reduction will cost Russian companies especially expensive.

The historical experience that we propose to take into account, and actually took place not so long ago - during the presidency of Bill Clinton. Now they have practically forgotten about the economic policy of his office (it was painful by the presidency of J. Bush-Ml.), But in vain, because Mr. Clinton pursued just the very policy that the world expert opinion is now trying to offer the American political leadership as the only way to salvation. But the experts seemed to have forgotten that this path has already been passed once and he did not bring salvation.

In short, one of the components of the Bill Clinton economic program, it was just to reduce the deficit of the US federal budget and at the same time reduce the deficit of the payment balance. Moreover, Mr. Clinton set himself a very ambitious goal to get rid of US public duty. The date of the full elimination of the debt, he appointed, by the way, 2012!

Now we, of course, do not undertake to say whether to perform a similar reduction in Obama, but Clinton first succeeded. Since 1993, when he took office, to 1997 he managed to bring down the US federal budget deficit from $ 290 billion to $ 22 billion, well, since 1998, budgets began to be reduced with a surplus that amounted to $ 236 billion in 2000. True, then the authorities in the United States changed, and the administration of J. Bush-ML. She began to pursue the exact opposite policy, with all her might, increasing the deficit of the US federal budget, but it was already a different story. We want to deal with the consequences to which the policy of the deficiency budget, pursued by its predecessor, led to.

And these consequences were very ambiguous. By knocking down the deficit and trying to reduce public debt, Clinton’s office provoked, apparently not wanting it himself, a powerful industrial decline, which we perfectly remember as a crisis of 1997-1998. Of course, this crisis had a lot of reasons, but the fact that one of them was a reduction in the expenses of the US government is beyond doubt. Nevertheless, a decrease in world demand over the course of several years by an average of $ 180 billion (and the deficit of the American budget for the period 1993-1996) could not but cause the corresponding reaction. Prices for the main types of resources have fallen, and for the countries that these resources produced have come hard times.

Of course, in many respects, the Clinton administration acted automatically. The end of the Cold War and the subsequent “universal disarmament” sharply reduced the need for military equipment and materials, and a decrease in this need led to a reduction in state expenses for defense in almost all countries of the world, including in the United States. This reduction in military expenditures made America’s state budget to be deficient, since military spending is always the largest article of the expenses of state budgets of developed countries.

That is, reducing them, the Clinton administration only performed the work that was supposed to do. Moreover, if any other team was in its place, she would probably do the same. But the fact that a massive reduction in military spending in a few years will lead to a crisis would probably be able to predict. Of course, it can be assumed that one of the presidential consultants and built such forecasts, but they could be refuted by the consideration that the resources that have been released from the public sector will be happy to absorb the private sector of the economy, and no difficulties in transferring the farm from military rails to peaceful ones.

But difficulties still arose. The reduction in government expenses has led to a reduction in demand for the main types of raw materials and materials, and this reduction, in turn, led to a sharp drop in prices for them. What happened next - everyone remembers well. The private sector of the developed countries could not completely absorb the resources of the public sector, and the winnings in prices that received economies that imported primary resources and exported final consumption goods were completely eaten from the reduction in demand from economies that produce and export primary resources and importing final consumption goods. In addition, a number of countries declared default on their debts, which also did not make reassurance into the world economy.

For all the difference between both stories, we see that the policy of reducing government spending can lead not only to favorable consequences - both on a global scale and in a personal biography.