If someone asks a question about the price, about the state's expenses, such people are declared to be defeatists who do not believe in progress.

It has long been clear that the apparatus of the presidential elections is much more interesting than its public component. This, of course, is in strong contrast to the previous campaign, which took place after the rallies on Sakharov Avenue and Bolotnaya. Then the elections themselves were interesting, now - only what will happen after. Experts are already going over the options for the new government. But the question should not be about the figure of the prime minister, but about what model of economic policy will be declared.

The choice has recently been between scenarios that, for simplicity, can be called mobilization and liberal. The first is based on the duration and escalation of the confrontation with the West and makes the task of survival in this struggle the dominant priority with all the ensuing consequences. In essence, this is a transition to a planned economy with faith in the miracles of new digital technologies. The second option: to recognize the probability of a frontal conflict with the West as not absolute, and the situation in the economy as dangerous from the point of view of prospects. Well, the recipe is generally known - painful reforms. Because the creation of good institutions and a quality environment ultimately requires money, which will have to be taken from somewhere. Usually, in our country, the gaze of decision makers still stops at the population.

Various lobby groups are trying to convince Putin to use their views on economic development. And the struggle is raging, as evidenced, for example, by the story about the discussion of the budget maneuver - naturally, far from the only one.

Putin's new presidential term could begin with a budget maneuver

Economy / Macroeconomics and Budget

But Putin will have to take the following factors into account. It will take a long time to build good institutions, and there is no time for this. A faster result is needed. The conflict with the West continues, but no matter what they say, things could have been much worse. Plus, oil has become more expensive. Therefore, I think the choice will ultimately be made in favor of betting on large industrial projects that will have to create demand for domestic technologies and for training Russian personnel. And this does not mean the nationalization of business. Private companies can participate in these projects, and they will even be happy to do so, because they will still be financed in various forms by the state. A purely Keynesian approach - mobilization light.

The problem is that no one is going to calculate the costs and the real economic effect. You constantly hear the same argument: "We need national technologies." New shipyards are being built, new aircraft and icebreaker projects are being created, new LNG plants are being opened, etc. However, if someone asks about the price, about government expenses, about future income, about more rational solutions, such people are declared to be defeatists who do not believe in progress. But in each such project there are tax breaks, government injections into infrastructure, and finally, just direct subsidies.

Read also: Food order for elections

Few deny the need to develop industry. At the same time, I remember how they laughed at the slogan "The economy must be economical." Since we have decided to return to Soviet practices, let's at least remember this thesis.

The author is the CEO of the National Energy Security Fund

When the economy is uneconomical