Economic theory. Version 1.0. Lecture notes

Lecture 1. Introductory, part 1

* It's about about something new theoretical approach to an economy that has matured long enough. It coincided well with the current crisis, the process of which is developing in accordance with his prediction within the framework of this approach, which thus has a connection with reality.

* What work has been done? It all started back in the USSR, when, after graduating from the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University, O.V. Grigoriev received good scientific guidance in the person of Ac. VI Danilov-Danilyan, a well-known economist in the past, now less known as the director of the Institute of Water Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Many regret that he left the economy, which suffered heavy losses in connection with this. In the early 1980s the Danilov-Danilyan group worked out the problem of dependence on raw materials, which became relevant in the 1970-1980s. It was about the fact that in the centralized system of capital investments that existed in the system of the planned economy of that time, the phenomenon was observed that an increasing share of capital investments was directed to the fuel and energy complex; at the same time, it was obvious that the remaining share of investments directed to other sectors of the economy, firstly, was declining, and secondly, it caused an extremely negative phenomenon in the rest of the economy. That is, the rest of the sectors are degrading. In the USSR, the question arose that soon only this sector would remain in the country.

* Decisions on investments were made on the basis of methods [calculating] the effectiveness of capital investments, which were written according to market principles. One of the authors is prof. Novozhilov - was an ardent supporter of the Austrian market school, and maintained a high level of science in the academic economy of that time. It was clear that the degradation of other sectors was dictated by market principles. When perestroika came and the transition to a market economy was discussed, the Danilov-Danilyan group treated this with horror, because they believed that if this trend could be somehow changed under a planned economy, then during the transition to a market economy, when all decisions are made exclusively on market principles, we will get what, in the end, happened in the country in 2012.

* At the same time, it was clear that market principles in capitalist countries, under approximately the same "oil" conditions, did not lead to the fact that the United States became someone's raw material appendage, but retained and even developed other technologies, except for the fuel and energy complex, moreover, enough rapidly, which eventually made it possible to abandon the production of oil and even buy it abroad, incl. in the USSR.

* There are two answers to this problem: 1) in fact, in the United States and in the West in general, strategic decisions are not made on the basis of market principles (a conspiratorial view of the nature of things). Indeed, there are quite a few examples of such decisions in these countries. For example, in the US, a soldered vacuum tax was introduced to move from vacuum tubes to transistors for the development of microelectronics. The argument against this answer is that, whatever the think tank and the US government, compared to the government of the USSR, it was an insignificant force, since such prominent bodies as the State Committee for Science and Technology, the USSR Academy of Sciences played a leading role in the Land of Soviets, "nine" defense industries, people from which made decisions. Chairman of the State Planning Commission N. Gaidukov was a native of the oil industry, but on the whole, it is unlikely that he alone acted against these expert-regulatory structures. And yet, the whole crowd of these structures could not resist the usual market logic. There was a big question about what mechanisms exist in the US, given the knowledge that multinational companies buy elections, have their lobbyists everywhere and make decisions based on market principles.

* After perestroika, these questions turned from theoretical into practical ones. Heated discussions about the problems of turning the country into a raw materials appendage were conducted in the authorities in the 1990s, and various attempts were made to this end, which each time ended in failure. Experience was also considered developing countries, many of whom tried to overcome their dependence on raw materials and develop their own industry. These experiments ended mostly in failure. The experiments that were going on also showed signs of impending collapse, which happened to many of them (Argentina, Mexico, etc., including those that had a restart, like in Brazil).

* Preliminary conclusion 2) was bold enough and was that all national economies are different, and they have some invisible factors in which market factors lead to different results in different cases. It was a challenge to traditional economic theory, which asserts the equality of all economies in the world, with the exception of private differences; that is, for example, nothing prevents Romania (Argentina, Indonesia, China, etc.) from reaching the level of the USA, except for laziness, greed, etc. of things. The whole theory of modernization suggests that, apart from obstacles from the citizens of the states themselves, there are no other obstacles in the economy to increase the level of well-being.

* If economies differ, by what factor? In 2002, during a private meeting, O. V. Grigoriev came up with the idea of ​​the level of division of labor. It was a kind of speculative construction, which made it possible to fit the numerous factors considered earlier into a fairly simple scheme. In connection with it, several problems arise. First of all, doubts arose about whether such an idea was the "invention of the bicycle", discovered long ago by someone earlier. The doubts were serious due to the fact that the division of labor as the proposed explanation was not only not new, but one of the basic concepts in economics. Suffice it to say that A. Smith begins his presentation of his ideas with this concept. Any economist will talk about the division of labor, for example, that "Russia must take its place in the international system of division of labor." However, why did O. Grigoriev see the division of labor as a construction explaining the fundamental difference between economies, while other economists did not, although everything seems to be quite simple here? Everything that was necessary for the conclusions was contained in a small classic text by A. Smith.

* Since the time of A. Smith, something has happened to the concepts and structure of the theory, after which the division of labor has become not a tool, but a figure of speech. I had to revise the evolution of economic theory. When it became clear that this economic discovery not only was not the "invention of the bicycle", but also clarified a lot, a discussion on this topic began. How to measure this factor? The first thing that catches your eye is the number of professions, about which, as a factor in the difference between rich and poor countries, the Norwegian economist E. Reinert also spoke. Indeed, in the USSR, in comparison with the "West", the level of division of labor was less, unlike the latter, and the mass of the people began to receive a mass of new professions (for example, the word "merchandiser" outside of Moscow still causes a smile).

* However, a deeper question was primary - not about how to measure, but about what this very level of division of labor will be measured in relation to. It was clear that this was not applicable to the national economy, because, if we take, for example, the division of labor system (SRT) of the United States, then it is not closed by the borders of this country, and is generally global. In the United States, the profession of metallurgist almost disappeared, as well as everything connected with the peasantry. Then, perhaps, to tie this concept to the firm? It is possible, but, again, this is not the level. The issue remained open and was not resolved for eight years. At the same time, there was already terminology and results, including forecasts that came true. But there was no basis for this activity. In 2010, it became clear what the concept of the level of division of labor applies to.

* Actually, in the economy, initially there were two bases (the object of study) for the application of economic concepts: the national economy, which is dealt with by "political economy" and, subsequently, the micro-level (individual), which is dealt with by "economics". When another basis for the applicability of economic concepts was formulated, such a discourse was called "neoconomics". After changing the object, in fact, the neoconomic group had to radically revise the history economic doctrines. The process ended relatively recently.

* On the structure of the course of lectures. In view of the fact that in neoconomics there is another object that requires a high level of abstraction for its presentation, the initial introduction of basic concepts would not lead to an understanding of the results of such work, and it would be necessary, when building a complete picture, to repeat what has already been said a second time , but passed on deaf ears and was forgotten. Therefore, in this first lecture, the basic concepts will be vaguely given, and in the next two lectures, a case will be considered, a specific example of how the division of labor factor works to explain some phenomena in the real economy, according to which even an orthodox economics has no solutions on n. XXI century, although the orthodoxy itself considers these phenomena do not have satisfactory solutions: this is the interaction of developed and developing states, and in general the problem of economic growth. Therefore, later, when the transition to working with abstract concepts is made, a reference to a specific example will be in front of your eyes. After the introduction of additional abstract concepts, additional content will be produced. This is the structure of the course.

Economic theory. Version 1.0. Lecture notes

Lecture 1. Introductory, part 1

* We are talking about a new theoretical approach to economics that has matured for quite a long time. It coincided well with the current crisis, the process of which is developing in accordance with his prediction within the framework of this approach, which thus has a connection with reality.

* What work has been done? It all started back in the USSR, when, after graduating from the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University, O.V. Grigoriev received good scientific guidance in the person of Ac. VI Danilov-Danilyan, a well-known economist in the past, now less known as the director of the Institute of Water Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Many regret that he left the economy, which suffered heavy losses in connection with this. In the early 1980s the Danilov-Danilyan group worked out the problem of dependence on raw materials, which became relevant in the 1970-1980s. It was about the fact that in the centralized system of capital investments that existed in the system of the planned economy of that time, the phenomenon was observed that an increasing share of capital investments was directed to the fuel and energy complex; at the same time, it was obvious that the remaining share of investments directed to other sectors of the economy, firstly, was declining, and secondly, it caused an extremely negative phenomenon in the rest of the economy. That is, the rest of the sectors are degrading. In the USSR, the question arose that soon only this sector would remain in the country.

* Decisions on investments were made on the basis of methods [calculating] the effectiveness of capital investments, which were written according to market principles. One of the authors is prof. Novozhilov - was an ardent supporter of the Austrian market school, and maintained a high level of science in the academic economy of that time. It was clear that the degradation of other sectors was dictated by market principles. When perestroika came and the transition to a market economy was discussed, the Danilov-Danilyan group treated this with horror, because they believed that if this trend could be somehow changed under a planned economy, then during the transition to a market economy, when all decisions are made exclusively on market principles, we will get what, in the end, happened in the country in 2012.

* At the same time, it was clear that market principles in capitalist countries, under approximately the same "oil" conditions, did not lead to the fact that the United States became someone's raw material appendage, but retained and even developed other technologies, except for the fuel and energy complex, moreover, enough rapidly, which eventually made it possible to abandon the production of oil and even buy it abroad, incl. in the USSR.

* There are two answers to this problem: 1) in fact, in the United States and in the West in general, strategic decisions are not made on the basis of market principles (a conspiratorial view of the nature of things). Indeed, there are quite a few examples of such decisions in these countries. For example, in the US, a soldered vacuum tax was introduced to move from vacuum tubes to transistors for the development of microelectronics. The argument against this answer is that, whatever the think tank and the US government, compared to the government of the USSR, it was an insignificant force, since such prominent bodies as the State Committee for Science and Technology, the USSR Academy of Sciences played a leading role in the Land of Soviets, "nine" defense industries, people from which made decisions. Chairman of the State Planning Commission N. Gaidukov was a native of the oil industry, but on the whole, it is unlikely that he alone acted against these expert-regulatory structures. And yet, the whole crowd of these structures could not resist the usual market logic. There was a big question about what mechanisms exist in the US, given the knowledge that multinational companies buy elections, have their lobbyists everywhere and make decisions based on market principles.

* After perestroika, these questions turned from theoretical into practical ones. Heated discussions about the problems of turning the country into a raw materials appendage were conducted in the authorities in the 1990s, and various attempts were made to this end, which each time ended in failure. The experience of developing countries was also considered, many of which tried to overcome their dependence on raw materials and develop their own industry. These experiments ended mostly in failure. The experiments that were going on also showed signs of impending collapse, which happened to many of them (Argentina, Mexico, etc., including those that had a restart, like in Brazil).

* Preliminary conclusion 2) was bold enough and was that all national economies are different, and they have some invisible factors in which market factors lead to different results in different cases. It was a challenge to traditional economic theory, which asserts the equality of all economies in the world, with the exception of private differences; that is, for example, nothing prevents Romania (Argentina, Indonesia, China, etc.) from reaching the level of the USA, except for laziness, greed, etc. of things. The whole theory of modernization suggests that, apart from obstacles from the citizens of the states themselves, there are no other obstacles in the economy to increase the level of well-being.

* If economies differ, by what factor? In 2002, during a private meeting, O. V. Grigoriev came up with the idea of ​​the level of division of labor. It was a kind of speculative construction, which made it possible to fit the numerous factors considered earlier into a fairly simple scheme. In connection with it, several problems arise. First of all, doubts arose about whether such an idea was the "invention of the bicycle", discovered long ago by someone earlier. The doubts were serious due to the fact that the division of labor as the proposed explanation was not only not new, but one of the basic concepts in economics. Suffice it to say that A. Smith begins his presentation of his ideas with this concept. Any economist will talk about the division of labor, for example, that "Russia must take its place in the international system of division of labor." However, why did O. Grigoriev see the division of labor as a construction explaining the fundamental difference between economies, while other economists did not, although everything seems to be quite simple here? Everything that was necessary for the conclusions was contained in a small classic text by A. Smith.

* Since the time of A. Smith, something has happened to the concepts and structure of the theory, after which the division of labor has become not a tool, but a figure of speech. I had to revise the evolution of economic theory. When it became clear that this economic discovery not only was not the "invention of the bicycle", but also clarified a lot, a discussion on this topic began. How to measure this factor? The first thing that catches your eye is the number of professions, about which, as a factor in the difference between rich and poor countries, the Norwegian economist E. Reinert also spoke. Indeed, in the USSR, in comparison with the "West", the level of division of labor was less, unlike the latter, and the mass of the people began to receive a mass of new professions (for example, the word "merchandiser" outside of Moscow still causes a smile).

IN Last year it became more and more clear that neoconomics is the best way to model economic processes and reveal the nature of what is happening in the financial sector and macroeconomics. Oleg Grigoriev was able to demonstrate the power of a new way of understanding economic and political processes. This has led to the emergence of false neoconomists - people who sanctify their purely economic ideas by claiming that these ideas supposedly follow from neoconomics. This can already be not only read in articles or heard during webinars, but also reaches the population from TV screens. The purpose of this note is to dispel the seven most frequently heard false claims of these pseudo-neoconomists.

The technological gap between Russia and the West can be reduced due to the high quality of Russian specialists

This is not true. Neoconomics clearly shows that desire alone is not enough and that the greater intelligence of specialists can do nothing with a much more labor-intensive system of division of labor. 3 billion people can build a system with a much deeper division of labor than 120-140 million inhabitants of Russia, no matter how smart the inhabitants of Russia may be, and no matter how stupid those 3 billion may be. This is the reason for the tragedy of the USSR with everything its intellectual potential and human capital.

The task set is meaningless not only within the framework of neoconomics, but also Marxism and classical political economy. But it is standard within the framework of the economics view of the economy. False neoconomists must realize that it is not a matter of the desire of individuals or large elite groups or even the entire population, but of the peculiarities of the interaction between developed and emerging markets. And then it is necessary to set not the task of import substitution in a single country, which is classical for economics, but a different task, a task of a completely different scale. A global challenge.

Import substitution is an alternative to the government's collaborationist policy

This is not true. Import substitution, according to the neoconomic model of interaction between developed and emerging markets, is an accelerated version of the suicide of the developing market, the elite of the state and the entire layer of specialists. Moreover, within the framework of neoconomics, it is clearly shown that the economic bloc of the Russian government after the collapse of the USSR acts very reasonably and rationally, constantly considering various options for import substitution and refusing to try to implement them.

Neoconomics is a closed theory and only Oleg Grigoriev can develop it

This is not true. Anyone can use neoconomics for their own purposes, developing the parts of neoconomics they need for themselves or for other people. The way of embedding one's knowledge into the general neoconomic is through the expansion of the system of neoconomics narrative models and through the standard portals of interaction of narratives.

A good, though not complete, analogy is the Wikipedia expansion scheme: there are articles, articles have concepts, for each concept you can write your own article about this concept and put a link from the original article. That is, if something is missing in neoconomics for a person, then he can prescribe narratives for himself according to concepts of interest or expand existing narratives to suit his needs and through this expand general knowledge or his personal knowledge.

Neoconomics is an academic theory, and I am a management / nuclear industry / finance practitioner and therefore I use it as I want

This is not true. Neoconomics only looks like a theory. In reality, by construction, it is only a generalization of the practical experience of a certain number of highly qualified specialists, an understanding of this experience. That's what narratives are for - to collect experience on a topic in the form of a coherent set of interacting facts. In turn, the facts themselves are also stories-narratives. And on these narratives there is a private model, the essence of which is not a theory, but an understanding of the phenomenon.

Accordingly, the opposition of one's experience and neoconomics only shows a person's misunderstanding of the neoconomic approach, misunderstanding of neoconomics and the falsity of sanctifying one's statements through neoconomics.

Neoconomics is an economic theory, so in this particular case it does not work

This is not true. One of the essential differences between neoconomics and all other ways of understanding economic processes is the consideration of volitional acts of participants in the economic system. Both group and personal.

Economicism and Marxism are based on abstract ideal-rational people. Non-idealities are introduced non-modelly and with great difficulty. So far, no one has managed to introduce real groups of influence.

In the neoconomic model, one can naturally introduce groups with common interests or models of specific individuals who use the economy for their political or personal interests. This is done in standard ways, and not through "pianos in the bushes." And this allows you to build models that are very close to real ones. Perhaps even take into account the possibility of such strong-willed decisions as the annexation of Crimea or Maidan.

If a person does not understand this and does not know how to enter the personal interests of the participants economic process, then he is a false neoconomist. If he tries to introduce Rothschilds and Rockefellers, "changers" and "interest-bearers" into the model, then this also causes some bewilderment.

The level of the world economy will soon be reached when regional systems of division of labor become profitable. This model is being actively developed by Oleg Grigoriev and his Research Center "Neoconomics"

This is not true. Both the lectures on the interaction of developed and developing economies, and the book, and Grigoriev's seminars clearly indicate that regional systems of the division of labor are a false hope. Any neoconomist understands and realizes the reason for this, no matter how hard it is for him to understand the consequences of this conclusion of neoconomics for Russia. I also recommend the webinar Discussion of Mikhail Khazin and Oleg Grigoriev: "On import substitution and other disagreements." The reason for the illusory nature of hope is the same reason why import substitution is impossible - more than a billion workers are needed for relative success, plus special conditions such as the secular isolation of this billion+.

It is possible to abandon the dollar in favor of independent regional currencies

This is not true. Neoconomics shows how and why the dollar became an international means of payment and why gold and other currencies had to be abandoned. Moreover, within the framework of neoconomics, the dollar will remain the main international means of payment as long as it can buy a larger list of goods than any other currency. The USA sells more than 50% of the world's list of exported goods. And yet, false neoconomists are still trying to seduce people with the possibility of creating regional currencies and even offer the ruble, yuan or other, sometimes new, currency options that include a peg to gold for their role.