The fact that the forced idleness of many millions who are in quarantine does not contribute either to their personal well-being or to their general economic situation, is understandable and accepted by all as evidence. Nobody canceled the words “how you drown, so you rush”, and with massive restraint you won’t especially drown. Nobody argues with this, and some measures are being taken every day to support the population and business. Maybe not enough - but where to get enough? But what are there.
However, we were taught that the crisis opens up new opportunities, and the opposition intends to use these opportunities to the fullest. When calls to give - and to give generously, as if the government had a cornucopia from where freshly printed banknotes are streaming - come from left-wing politicians, as well as from fighters of an uncertain orientation, this is understandable. In their place, everyone would do so, and responsibility has never been a strong point of such politicians.
But experts who came forward with the requirements of generous distribution were also coming up yesterday, who, according to their views, were rather close to the Mean Knight. Three runaway professors - S.V. Aleksashenko, one of the creators of the 1998 default, S.M. Guriev, who had experimented with reliable Yukos schemes and fully approved them, and V.L. Inozemtsev, who was engaged in business and fell into bad debts, and now hiding from creditors abroad, decided to help Russia with useful tips. Together with a choir of experts from the HSE and similar institutions, they were presented on behalf of the Liberal Mission Foundation, and now they intend to regularly perform under the virtual roof of the Yeltsin Center, which is quarantined.
Although the track record of speakers does not inspire much confidence, but given the covenant of Chairman Mao, “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools compete,” why not. At the table, no one is superfluous.
Confusion, however, causes not so much even the past of the newly made friends of the people, as their current passion. People who used to have immoderate budget inconvenience now profess the same immoderate helicopter incidence, that is, the theory of “helicopter money” that the government must throw from the air in a carpeted way: “The anti-crisis measures announced by the Russian government at the moment and amounting to about 2 in total , 5% of GDP, we consider insufficient ... Perhaps, “carpet”, rather than application payments according to the model of temporary “unconditional income” are necessary. It’s better to give out money even to those who could do without it, than to face (at least) double growth of those who really have no work. ”
That is, a volt of 180 degrees. Prominent economists, probably anticipating surprise, explain why Saul turned to Pavel: “We urge the government not to prepare for the last war: economic policies that were used to combat previous crises can turn out to be not only useful, but also harmful in this case.”
The fact that budgetary provision, which envisages a rigid shutdown of the money crane (and at least eat wolves in the economy), is directly destructive, many have long said. But a sharp opening of the crane to the full according to the method of carpet bombing bills can also be harmful.
In January 1923, France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr region of Germany - its industrial heart, where 72% of coal was mined and more than 50% of iron and steel were produced. The German authorities announced the tactics of passive resistance and took upon themselves the payment of wages to the Ruhr workers. The same helicopter money. Which led to the final transition of German inflation to a gallop. By September 1923, when Chancellor Stresemann announced the end of passive resistance, a loaf of bread, a beer, etc. billions of marks worth.
So, giving advice on a cosmic scale, it is worthwhile to be more careful. “A wizard friend will fly in a blue helicopter and leave me five hundred popsicles as a present” - this is good, but what will happen to the economy after that is a big question.
Probably, this is generally a property of liberal economists who are able to act exclusively on the principle of “When a house is burning, they don’t think about broken glasses.” They either suggest cutting with a rusty saw without anesthesia, or, on the contrary, treating the disease with horse doses of morphine - but always with startling recklessness.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.