US Global Economy: An End That Sneaks Noticeably

Who about what, and I again about the globalism that I strongly dislike. This text is a free continuation of my own article published on the Reporter on January 31 of this year under the title “The fatal mistake of the globalists: why the Anglo-Saxons do not like us”.




After talking with quite a few representatives of the “Western school”, I came to an interesting conclusion. It cannot be said that in the American, British and other higher educational institutions, “Kapstran”, along with their own politicaleconomic calculations, they would not study the experience and theories of the "enemy" from the "socialist camp". Studied. They studied the works of Marx, articles by Lenin and other theoreticians of the so-called "scientific communism". But this happened, as a rule, with the obligatory proviso that this is how not to do it. That is, people, as it were, reading these materials in advance, were programmed that everything stated there was wrong. And this, to put it mildly, is not entirely true.

Deviating somewhat from the topic, I will say that, in fact, the educational institutions of the USSR also, in general, adhered to a similar, far from the best, practice in the study of Western models. Subsequently, including this, ultimately, in many respects had a negative impact on the development of our own economy. I personally firmly adhere to the belief that it is necessary to study and use any and anyone's experience of development or action in those areas where it has shown itself to be successful in practice, regardless of some political sympathy.

But back to our "sworn Western partners". If they had studied at least the same "Capital" by Karl Marx more attentively and less biasedly, they would certainly have paid attention to the fact that the development of capitalism in a liberal system, that is, with the so-called democratic method of government, is essentially incompatible with that. what is called national interests. For free-form capitalism, the main goal is only to increase capital. This is already an axiom. We saw evidence of this already during the First and Second World Wars, when individual representatives of the business elites of warring states nevertheless carried out secret trade deals among themselves, even contrary to the strategic interests of their own countries and peoples. In the modern world, we are regularly faced with a massive transfer of production facilities to regions with a lower cost of the production process, in order to increase profits, but clearly at the expense of employment and the development of the economic potential of our own countries. And also with the withdrawal, especially by large entrepreneurs, of a huge amount of capital to various "offshore zones" and other places with low tax and control requirements, to the detriment of the tax income of their own states and investments in their economies. All this undoubtedly weakens the production and economic potential of the donor countries, which, as a rule, are now the developed powers of the Western world. And also increases their vulnerability to external factors.

While this is by no means a complete prerogative of the West, it is a general trend of big business in general. Russia, through the efforts of some "especially gifted market people" who were in power in the nineties, also headed for the liberal-capitalist stream of development. And now look at the Abramovichs, Deripasoks, Grefs and similar figures. These people seem to be considered great representatives of Russian business. But where are the bulk of their capital located? How dependent are they on outside pressure? Are they able, as top representatives of huge nationally significant corporations, to solve nationally significant tasks if they contradict the interests of their capital? Of course not! It is enough to look at the recent history with Rusal, or try to answer the question "Why are there no Sberbank branches in the Russian Crimea?" Moreover, in pursuit of super-profits, having integrated into this very "global system", and from time to time already in it, "getting in the head" from even stronger external players, these citizens immediately turn for help to this very state, from which they withdraw capital and who are underpaid taxes, citing the "social significance" of their enterprises. And they receive this very help, thanks to the described methods of influence of big business on power just below in the article. Here, in my opinion, in general, the question arises as to how acceptable and how beneficial is it for the Russian state to find such enterprises in private hands? But this is a somewhat different topic.

But let's go further. Perhaps even more dangerous is the growing possibility of big capital already influencing the government. In a world where everything is sold and everything is bought, capital has every opportunity to influence the so-called democratic institution of the formation of the governing bodies of the state. Through the media, direct subsidies from various movements or organizations, political parties, etc., not to mention ordinary corruption, direct and indirect pressure is exerted on the electoral masses. And they, then, in the course of the electoral process, lead to power, in fact, just people needed by capital. In this way or in the way of so-called “lobbying”, which, from my point of view, is just a beautiful name for the same corruption, big business “pushes” at the state level already beneficial decisions and laws, which, again, often do not correspond to the real interests of the peoples and states in which all this is happening.

It is as a result of all this, in the Western world in general, and in the United States of America in particular and in the most significant form, today we see an extremely entertaining picture: the interests of giant corporations, which, in fact, are the mainstay of the greatness of the American economy, at this stage of development already they simply run counter to the interests of the United States itself as a state. This, apparently, is well understood by the 45th American President Donald Trump, who unexpectedly for many suddenly climbed onto the "political Olympus" of the overseas superpower not from among their local established "political elite", but from real business. He, as a clear nationalist and patriot of his country, from the very beginning of his presidency, really tries to take all sorts of steps to return capital and real production to the territory of the United States. He is trying to limit the dependence of his state on products imported from outside, and he wants to force those who make huge profits on these imports to share with the state the way of paying taxes and import duties. But these timid attempts to get the state out of the tenacious "tentacles of globalism", most likely, will not be able to radically influence the situation. The mutual guarantee of transnational monopolies has long and firmly linked practically all spheres of the economy, as well as the domestic and foreign policy of the United States. And this whole machine is now, in fact, working against its own legitimate president, sabotaging his activities with all its might, and trying to discredit and limit his rights as much as possible. And no matter how much Trump would like this, it will no longer be possible to revive the once strongest national economy of his country in the world, precisely in national status.

And in Russia, too, the first bells of globalism are already "ringing" - for example, the story of gasoline prices, which rose sharply due to the fact that Russian oil companies were simply more profitable to sell their products on the foreign market at a higher price than to provide the necessary fuel own country. What it is? And this is a direct harm to national interests from globalism. And the absence of Sberbank branches in Crimea is the same. Mr. Gref is much more interested in the profits of his company's subsidiaries abroad, which may come under threat due to sanctions, than in the development of financial services in his own country. Moreover, these "daughters" with "Sberbank" have in common only the name and the initial capital injection, otherwise they are purely foreign legal entities. That is, the state of the Russian sense from them, in fact, zero. This is all very unpleasant. But still, it is less unpleasant than when its own, in fact, national bank, which controls the emission of money in the country, and representatives of the legislative branch, openly boycott the economic policy of its president. And this is exactly what is happening now in the United States, in a country with a presidential system of government, mind you. And money is not some piastres, lira or hryvnia, and not even respectable Swiss francs, for example, it is essentially the single world currency at the moment, the blood in the body of the global economy - the American dollar.

At the very beginning of the eighties, when it was decided to "untie" the dollar from the gold equivalent, it apparently seemed to the Americans a brilliant idea. After all, only they printed dollars, and their value, in fact, was supported by the economy of the rest of the world. That is, it would seem, print as much as you want, and you will be the richest in the world! In fact, this has been the case for a fairly long period of time. But by the beginning of the XNUMXst century, this turned for the United States into the fact that this state itself practically lost control over its own currency. Its value and the volume of emission are now determined by the exchange games of huge transnational financial corporations, and an organization called the US Federal Reserve, which, despite its name, is by no means a state one, but is a complex symbiosis of several private banking structures. And the US Treasury, in fact, is simply physically fulfilling the order of the Federal Reserve to issue paper money in the amount it needs. I will not analyze here the complex system of distribution of financial flows in the United States, but the result of the functioning of this system is that today in America there are a fairly large number of super-rich corporations and banking houses, and the state itself, at the same time, has an absolutely cosmic debt, the repayment of which is already even in theory it is not possible. The state economy of the United States is a huge "soap bubble", which, by some inertia, still persists, contrary to all the capitalism and market laws, the standard of which America is allegedly. And this is absolutely known to the whole world. Giant American corporations are American only in name. This capital has long been "globalized", having lost its national identity, and began to live its own life, directly according to the laws of Marx. Initially promoting the ideas of globalism, the United States had as its ultimate goal to subjugate the entire world economic system, but at the same time it ignored the basic principles of capital development. And it played a cruel joke on them. Now the American state itself, with all its power and security structures, living, in fact, on the credit money of transnational corporations and entirely dependent on them, has become just a powerful tool for suppressing competition around the world in the hands of all the same corporations.

On the world's stock exchanges, huge amounts of money are circulated daily in the form of so-called securities. In recent years, it is this, and not production and real turnover, that is the most powerful source of profits. The bulk of money is no longer made from commodities, and in most cases the ultimate goal of bargaining is not a certain material substance, but a banal “fat”. Money makes money, it is also a carry-over commodity, that is, property, and the purpose of the transaction. A certain real product is often just a fiction, a bargaining tool, but not a real goal. "Future contract" - a futures contract for not yet produced oil or orange juice, for which oranges have not even grown yet, is already being sold from hand to hand a number of times, bringing profits to its short-term owners, of course, who have nothing to do with fuel or oranges. And no one is, by and large, interested if this oil is actually produced, or if a platform somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico explodes from a fire, and the oranges may simply not ripen due to the arrival of a cold front. It doesn't matter, because the main margin from all this has already been received anyway. Various shares in certain enterprises and funds wander around the world in paper form, gaining and losing price as a result of stock speculation, and their price, therefore, sometimes differs from reality at times. This is called capitalization. That is, the entire current global financial system is also a huge "soap bubble", even steeper than the US economy. But every bubble bursts sooner or later. And something tells me that this modern one will burst before my own eyes. Not that I really wanted to, of course. This whole system seems to me to be deeply immoral and unfair, nevertheless it will be bad from its collapse, I think, it will be almost all living in the territories affected by this phenomenon, that is, me too. Almost the entire world in which we live and to which we are already accustomed will collapse. And this is always difficult and dangerous.

A reasonable question arises: Who benefits from all this? After all, it would seem that if the system collapses, then it is the system-forming institutions that should suffer first of all - these same financial giants who created it and manage it for their own profit? But in fact, everything is quite simple - their benefits will not go anywhere. All these inflated stocks and worthless loan bonds that no one will ever give back, futures, etc. will disappear, world currencies will collapse, stock exchanges and banks will go bankrupt, governments will undoubtedly fall and entire state entities may collapse. A huge number of "investors" will lose their paper fortunes. But for their "washed-up" inflated currencies and painted "securities", these very corporations, or rather their ruling elite, the real owners, have already bought themselves quite material values ​​around the world: large real estate objects, land plots, mineral deposits, industrial, agricultural and transport complexes, technological patents and chains for the production of a wide variety of items, as well as all sorts of little things such as tons of rare metals and precious stones, art objects and even weapons. So they expect a general collapse, figuratively speaking, with a smile. “The king is dead! Long live the king!" And after a general collapse, everything will apparently have to be organizationally resumed from the level of about the beginning of the twentieth century, in the form of commodity capitalism, smoothly moving into a stable paper (or already digital) channel under the control of all the same structures that will already have in their hands even more money, more property, more power, and an even greater share of the planetary development resources. Voila! The only thing that can prevent the implementation of this wonderful idyll of world capital (if we exclude the next global war, which can also happen on this basis) is the same theory of Marx. As a result of the collapse of the existing world order, uncontrollable chaos may arise, and it would suddenly occur to someone in all this to engage in the "expropriation of the expropriators." Specifically for Russia - nothing new. It is also interesting that the poorest and underdeveloped countries of the world, which are still not included in the global capital system or are included only minimally, may become indirect beneficiaries of the coming general financial cataclysm. That is, they are also little dependent on it. Their way of life, in fact, will not change in any way, and perhaps there will be some revival, against the background of the collapse of the overwhelming majority of developed countries.

Can this global financial armageddon be avoided? I think that at this stage in the development of globalism, it is hardly possible. But you can certainly at least try to greatly mitigate its consequences specifically for our country. We have already firmly entered the capitalist system, but the prerogative of our state, fortunately, is still a real commodity economy. And introduced against us, initially with the aim of unfair competition in the global market, international sanctions, oddly enough, also served us well in this, forcing us to learn to work more independently. This also applies to the production, but most importantly, the financial sphere of the economy: we are learning to live without credit funds of transnational corporations, and thus we get out of direct dependence on them. In world history, there are examples of the successful development of capitalism in line with the national idea of ​​a specific state. These are the German Third Reich of the 30s-40s of the last century and the modern Chinese economy. An interesting model is also the projects of some countries of the "socialist camp" that allowed the development of small private entrepreneurship, such as Hungary and socialist Yugoslavia. But this still cannot be attributed to macroeconomics. In order not to be accused of various mortal sins, I specifically clarify: at the moment I am considering Hitler's Germany from the point of view of exclusively used economic instruments, and that they were the most effective, hardly anyone who understands this topic can doubt. Both in the system of modern China and in the German Reich, at the same time, there are absolutely identical foundations for building "economic miracles" - this is a rigid one-party, and essentially authoritarian, management system, a planned economy, as well as almost complete state control over economic activities and the information environment in country. Moreover, even large private companies are subject to state regulation of their activities in the national interests. Strategically important industries and individual enterprises in them either simply belong to the state, or have its representatives in their governing bodies. This is how you can make capitalism work for the good of your own people.

At the same time, no one forbids anyone to receive even super-profits and even on the international market, they are simply controlled, and in a predetermined (considerable) percentage volume are directed to the channel necessary for the country and its economy. For example, in the development and expansion of the same own production, or in recreation programs for workers, instead of yachts, castles and foreign football clubs. The latter, by the way, is precisely the German experience since the mid-30s. Russia now, in my opinion, even though under the screeching, whistling and snot of liberals actively sponsored by our "sworn partners", is nevertheless timidly trying to head in this direction too. Hopefully, this is indeed the case, because this is the most correct way to mitigate the consequences of the global financial crisis to the maximum. We really have all the forces and resources to withstand aggressive external factors. Yes, this is not the easiest way, and in the beginning you may even have to sacrifice something. I understand that these are hackneyed phrases, and our people are already tired of such. Nevertheless, let's look at the above-mentioned historical examples - these measures have allowed specific states to literally "rise from their knees" and become world leaders in literally one or two decades! This is somewhat different from what we were promised in 1917, then three generations were asked to be patient, but in eighty years they did not reach the designated goal. This is not a communist utopia, but a very real and practically proven model. Not exactly according to Marx, but without losing sight of his basic principles. And mutually beneficial cooperation with the outside world is quite possible for itself on a bilateral basis. Without the imposed mediation of bloated stock exchanges, international funds and transnational corporations.

Here you can learn from the sad experience of the United States. I apologize in advance for such a comparison, but, in my opinion, the relationship between globalist corporations and the United States, in this case, resembles the cohabitation of a parasite and its host. The parasite carrier on itself grows, feeds, warms and protects from external threats, and the parasite, in turn, developing safely, sucks out the vital forces from the carrier and, in fact, slowly kills it, while scattering eggs in the external environment for its further reproduction ... This is so that the life cycle of the parasite is not interrupted at the moment when its host dies sooner or later. And the larvae of this infection, unfortunately, have already attacked our territory. But the intensive therapy undertaken on time can still prevent the development of this worm - globalism, which slowly steals the vital forces of the state. It is necessary to destroy the larvae at the earliest stage, otherwise it will be too late - they will stick tightly, as in America. And there is no need to listen to sweet-voiced songs about the future of general global prosperity in the soft featherbed of inflated stock exchange values. In Russian speaking, this is a common "layout", the chance of winning here for our country is approximately equal to the chance of winning at "thimbles" on the market square with experienced "thugs". And the bait and the extras, and even the first supposedly winnings for the seed - everything is exactly the same, everything is in place. Only on a global scale.
16 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in
  1. Expert Offline Expert
    Expert (sad asda) 5 February 2019 11: 55
    +2
    I agree. I hope Putin knows what he's doing
  2. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 5 February 2019 13: 38
    -2
    30 years already patriots prophesy the end of the US economy ....
    And the elite brought there 2 billion green ...
  3. Nikolay Tutynin Offline Nikolay Tutynin
    Nikolay Tutynin (Nikolai Tutynin) 5 February 2019 13: 50
    +4
    Author: Alexey Pishenkov 5+
  4. master3 Offline master3
    master3 (Vitali) 5 February 2019 13: 54
    -2
    the end of the US economy

    - It’s even hard to remember how many years I hear it. Although for the “Cheers of Patriots” balm for the soul - naive.
  5. Rusa Offline Rusa
    Rusa 5 February 2019 22: 55
    +2
    China is building its own socialism, with Chinese characteristics and market relations. Consequently, Russia also needs to move back to the future, towards socialism. Moreover, the Constitution of the Russian Federation expressly states: Russia is primarily a social state, where social justice is the cornerstone and foundation. Currently, the political power in the Russian Federation is of an oligarchic type, which does not reflect the aspirations and interests of the common people, unlike China.
    Therefore, corruption, thieves and crooks feel at ease. The oligarchs stuff their pockets and plunder the national wealth of the country, and the highest authorities are closely connected with business. And as long as this continues, there will be no significant shifts and breakthroughs in the Russian economy, as in China.
    Thanks to the author for the publication.
  6. Yuri Soul Offline Yuri Soul
    Yuri Soul (Yuri Soul) 6 February 2019 17: 22
    +3
    In general, everything is true, there is nothing to argue. A few clarifications.
    Globalization, in fact, was predicted by Marx. And he saw nothing wrong with her. Moreover, he considered it a product of the normal evolution of the world economy. He described how money becomes the main type of product that displaces tangible goods.
    Another thing is that the “production" of money has reached unthinkable sizes. Yes, and to hell with him, the way they print. The trouble is different - money production indicators are included in all indicators of economic development. In the same GDP. The population may die of hunger, and GDP may grow due to, for example, the banking sector. A good example of this is Ukraine. Now it is one of the poorest countries in the world, and banks live and live well. Last year, we increased our profit 11 (eleven) times! Where did the firewood come from? And due to what? Due to the robbery of material production, for which banking services are an expenditure item of the balance sheet. The greater the profit of banks, the lower the income of producers of goods.
    True, this profit of banks is as exaggerated as the entire current system. Therefore, for the majority of the population, the impending global cataclysm of the financial system will remain unnoticed. Let's imagine that in a minute (absolutely) such a “giant” as Facebook with its 600 billion capitalization disappears. Of course, someone will jump out of the window of their skyscraper, someone will scratch their turnips in front of the monitor screen, but most of them will not even notice this and will go on chewing their hamburger. Because a hamburger is a material thing. Now, if he disappears like that, it’s worse, everyone will notice. Although we already went through this thirty years ago, it doesn’t matter - let's go dig potatoes.
    We can only hope that in Russia, finally, the era of sworn monetarists will end, and the materialists will come to power!
    Long live dialectical materialism!
    Dig, gentlemen, comrades, dig deeper! Good luck!
  7. A.Lex Offline A.Lex
    A.Lex (Secret information) 6 February 2019 21: 48
    +1
    Any relationship under capitalism leads to war. Why? Yes, everything is very simple - ALWAYS there is someone stronger to ZADARA to take away the resources he needs MORE than the one that has them. This time. The second - the example of the thirties Germany is INCORRECT. Because the German economy was SPECIALLY pumped up with money for the development of Nazism in it (which was also pumped up with loot). Specially raised this monster (who almost ate them themselves) - in order to set him on the USSR. By itself, this full-time Nazism could not do ANYTHING without replenishment from the outside - there are not so many natural resources. But Russia-the USSR-was able to. Because and natural resources and human resources were available ... and now there is ... here is only the second temporary detention center - there wasn’t and never was. There is no one to bother this mess and make the country work, not to buy yachts with clubs and to blow all this nonsense about liberalism into the ears of the people.
    By the way! And the post-war FRG was also pumped up with dough - they created a shop window (they knew the bastards where to invest), while simultaneously conducting subversive work in the countries of the social camp and in the USSR. Germany, neither before nor after II MV, would NEVER independently be able to rise. This is only Russia with its resources and spaces could do.
    It is also not correct to compare Nazi Germany and China - the ways of building a state and economy are different. Like ideology. And here the most important thing is IDEOLOGY. No ideology - no state. Even in Russia there is an ideology (although according to the constitution we don’t have it like ...) - "Get rich!". This cry-ideology, many remember? Remember who it belongs to?
    So that's what ideology is - and so is the state.
    1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
      Pishenkov (Alexey) 6 February 2019 23: 03
      +1
      A. Lex, first of all, thanks for the comment, and secondly, I agree on the post-war Germany, but I definitely do not agree on the 3rd Reich. They definitely had an ideology, and the strongest possible. Its correctness is, of course, another question, but its presence is indisputable. As well as the fact that Germany was certainly not pumped up with money, neither after the First World War, nor even more so after Hitler came to power. There were investments of individual foreign companies in individual German enterprises, but nothing more. At the general economic level of the entire country, it was a drop in the ocean. On the contrary, there was a complete external boycott, the absence of foreign exchange reserves, etc. + reparations, + selected 1/8 of the territory, including industrial Alsace, Lorraine and the Sarsk coal basin, and before the arrival of the Nazis in general, complete chaos and the collapse of both the economy and civil society. On this topic, if you're interested, from fairly simple and accessible materials, and if you read in English, I highly recommend the book "Wages of destruction" I don't remember the author, but I think you will find it. Everything is stated quite normally and it is also understandable not for professionals. I don't even know in Russian if there is really adequate materials on this topic in the public domain. But you can take my word for it, when I started to study this topic quite seriously, from what they invented in economics, my jaw really dropped ... not to mention the time frame and what they achieved. No one in the world has ever repeated such economic miracles. And the point is not at all in the slave labor of prisoners, confiscated property of Jews, etc. economic miracles are not built on this
      1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
        Pishenkov (Alexey) 6 February 2019 23: 22
        +1
        Yes, also regarding resources and who needs them more: it is subjective that someone may think that he needs someone’s resources more than their immediate owner. In the latter, as a rule, the point of view is exactly the opposite. Then this first one decides that he is stronger and tries to take them from the second one. But this does not always work out, and it does not always happen under capitalism. The whole history of our country centuries ago is a confirmation of this. Someone always likes our lands and resources, they think that we need them less, and are also confident in their abilities. We know how these campaigns end for centuries ... And it was the capitalists who tried to capture us only for the last 100 years, before that other structures — kings, emperors, leaders, tribes, etc.
        1. A.Lex Offline A.Lex
          A.Lex (Secret information) 7 February 2019 12: 10
          0
          I do not take the Middle Ages. They are constantly trying to "dispossess" Russia - yes. But ESPECIALLY - when there was socialism in Russia (and not communism, as some vote in other places). The question is why? And everything is very simple - it was under socialism that the Russian state got the opportunity to respond more flexibly to the challenges of the world. The truth is not always and everywhere it was effective, but it is the quality of personnel and the intraframe policy. And this is a question for selection. I’m talking about the crime of capitalism in general and its inhumanity. This is the second slave system.
          Now for Germany: Germany, which has debts, is deprived of industry, has no colonies (in order to finance itself, pumping resources out of them), humiliated and crushed, "obkornenny" from all sides - how, tell me, could rise? Well, here you go: "The German banker Schacht in 1929 noted with satisfaction:" Germany in 5 years received as many foreign loans as America received in the 40 years preceding the First World War "... Further: Standard Oil owned by Rockefeller "controlled the entire German oil refining industry and the production of synthetic gasoline from coal ... And so on throughout the economic and financial structure of Germany. So that Germany was pumped up with dough and this is a fact.
          None of the capitalist states NEVER rose unless it was fed from the outside. Most capitalist states are dwarfs, compared to Russia. (both in terms of human resources, and in terms of minerals, or stability in the country) The only ones who stand out from this series are those who are in power of the Saxo-Saxons. Oddly enough, they are all united in one union in one way or another (economically, along the military line, politically ...). As long as this nation dominates the world (and this is so, whether we want it or not) - Russia is only a prey for them. And if the authorities in our country hope for "building relations", then it’s very sorry ... very sorry. But on the other hand - to replace our power with force (such as "Maidanism"), this is the best way to call for another foreign intervention on our territory. But they are just waiting for the next Civil War with us !!! To solve the "Russian question" once and for all.
          1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
            Pishenkov (Alexey) 7 February 2019 14: 10
            +1
            A. Lex, I can agree with almost everything what , but still not about the Reich. It was precisely Hitlerite Germany that rose itself, literally in spite of everyone, rose in a unique way, and in the presence of capitalism within, but with its strict state regulation. There were infusions, but on a macroeconomic scale they are drops. If you're really curious, find the book I wrote. Or, if it is very interesting, then scientific literature, archives, etc. I promise that your views will change greatly after this and that you will learn a lot of really amazing things. At the same time, do not forget that in the presence of capitalist enterprises, the state system was officially called "National Socialism". And I don’t know how to call it more precisely, it was not capitalism as such that attacked our "socialism", but also socialism - "national socialism". And the goal of the war, yes, was both resources and ideology. But not resources for the sake of resources or resources for capital, namely resources for a particular nation, its development to the detriment of other nations, and this is more an ideology, not capitalism. Although I, this same capitalism, also do not like me much, and here our views clearly agree.
            1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
              Pishenkov (Alexey) 7 February 2019 15: 44
              0
              PS the book had in mind "Wages of destruction", although I wrote, but on a slightly different topic, though also about the war soldier
            2. vikganz Offline vikganz
              vikganz (Vik Ganz) 21 May 2019 11: 55
              0
              ... And I don’t know what else to call it on our “socialism”; then it was not capitalism, as such, that attacked, but also socialism - “national socialism ...”

              And, if you continue, "socialism" and "national socialism" then can we continue that the ideology of Hitler and Stalin was similar?
              No, you're lying Pyshenkov. Ideologies were different. From the word "very"!
              1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
                Pishenkov (Alexey) 21 May 2019 12: 50
                0
                Socialism is not an ideology, but rather an economic order. The ideology was very different, very much, as you put it, this is a fact, but they had "National Socialism", as they called it themselves, with the ideology of Nazism, and our ideology was officially communist, but the state system, albeit the same nominally considered "socialism", but from my point of view in the 30s-40s was very far from it, in terms of a really social orientation. After the war, it became more like socialism. Although capitalism is different - in the USA, Russia, Sweden, India and South Africa, for example, it is very different today, like Hitler's socialism in the 40s, in the USSR in the 70s-80s and today in China, for example ...
  8. Finenov Oleg Offline Finenov Oleg
    Finenov Oleg (Oleg Krasnov) 24 November 2019 20: 37
    +1
    Thanks to the author. Moreover, in addition to his words about the “daughters” of Sberbank.
    One of the indicative is Ukrainian. How much Sberbank invested there state, consider our money? And now with them?
    And in general, unfortunately, I did not find in the public domain information on how much profit Sberbank of the Russian Federation received from the activities of its subsidiaries abroad. If someone tells me, it will be interesting. Maybe these subsidiaries provide financial support to Russian projects abroad? I personally, however, am not familiar with this.
  9. Blast Offline Blast
    Blast (Vladimir) 7 August 2020 13: 05
    0
    Yeah ... for three months in a row, the Fed has been pouring in a trillion a month, they are going to pour in the fourth trillion. This cannot go on for a long time and it all looks like the finish line ... It seems that it will not be long left ... some absolutely prohibitive rate of public debt growth, and it does not help very much ... unlike 2008, when everyone could same, flooding the fin. markets with money, somehow stabilize everything.