"We are destined for success." Putin thanked Russians for unity

"New pension system - don't save money, die on the street"

We have already talked about the grandiose plans to transfer medicine in the Russian Federation to a completely commercial basis.
THE STATE GIVES MEDICINE TO BUSINESS: PAY OR DIE?

Now to a topic that has never been touched upon in this blog, but meanwhile, this is one of the functions of the social state, which the Russian Federation was considered to be until recently, one way or another, at least to some extent, gradually losing ground, but maintaining at least something That.
Can you guess what kind of sphere this is?
Yes, the same thing, sooner or later, will affect everyone who will not be disposed of earlier medical services, Certainly...

Is raising the retirement age a six-year task for the authorities?
Raising the retirement age cannot be avoided. This conclusion suggests itself from the latest statements by representatives of the Cabinet of Ministers.
Minister of Economic Development Maxim Oreshkin said that raising the retirement age is “being discussed in society” and there are different proposals in this regard.
And at the beginning of the month, in an interview with Vladimir Pozner, he talked about how difficult it would be to increase pensions and the quality of healthcare without raising taxes or the retirement age.
But this issue, Oreshkin emphasized, will be decided by the new Government after the presidential elections.

This week, Vnesheconombank published and immediately deleted a forecast that provided for a gradual increase in the retirement age from 2020, which is why Deputy Prime Minister Olga Golodets had to explain and refute, saying that this issue is not discussed in the Government.

But if the Russian authorities set such a task for themselves for the next presidential term, then it will be a great disappointment that this will not solve any problems. In an interview with Nakanune.RU, the publicist and sociologist, head of the Institute of Globalization and social movements Boris Kagarlitsky.

Question: In your opinion, what do all these statements and hints from Government representatives about raising the retirement age mean? That this will become the government’s task for the next six years?

Kagarlitsky: Not for the next six years - this task has been pending for a long time. Raising the retirement age in the context of increasing life expectancy and increasing activity of citizens is in principle possible, but there are two large and absolutely insurmountable objections in this case. First, fundamental - social rights cannot be taken away, and raising the retirement age is a precedent for taking away rights from citizens. The second objection is that raising the retirement age does not solve any problems at all.

Question: Why?

Boris Kagarlitsky: The paradox is that raising the retirement age is a one-time action that is needed for one single purpose - to save on pensions for the age group that falls under retirement at the time of the increase. Simply put, if you now have certain categories of citizens who will need to pay pensions from September 1, 2018 and who will receive an increase for three years, up to 63 years of age, then you save money on three age groups, which for the time being - until don't pay pensions for a while. Accordingly, you use this difference to pay additional money to existing pensioners that you were already obligated to pay. After three years, this cohort of citizens still comes, and all the winnings that you received during this time are dissolved. Moreover, you get an increased number of retirees because these people are catching up with them. Winnings will be lost after three years.

Question: Or you can constantly increase retirement age…

Boris Kagarlitsky: In the West, people have already fallen into this trap: in some countries they raised the retirement age 2-3 times. When people come who have raised the retirement age to 63 years old, and now they are 63 years old, the state raises the retirement age again - to 65. Only pensioners approach it, the state increases it again by two years. This was the case in Germany. As a result, you save every time and when you approach the limit at which, it seems, you can no longer raise the retirement age, and then the bankruptcy of the pension fund occurs, and on a larger scale than before.

Question: So raising the retirement age does not solve the problems?

Boris Kagarlitsky: From an economic point of view, raising the retirement age is an absolutely meaningless action. This is postponing the solution to the problem for 2-3-5 years. From a social point of view, this makes some sense - just to change the overall social picture. With the increase in the retirement age, able-bodied women aged 55, who do not yet want to be considered pensioners, and men aged 59, will have certain new behavior options. But this can also hit other people who want to relax.

Question: In that case, what is the solution? Leave everything as it is?

Boris Kagarlitsky: The only option is not to raise the retirement age, but to create a differentiated system with several retirement options that citizens could choose. But provided that all those pension guarantees that currently exist are automatically preserved. And talk about how expensive it is is complete nonsense. Let's "dispossess" one conditional "Rotenberg" and simply the profitable part of his income will be enough to cover all the countless positions of the pension fund for many years to come, since the profitable part is renewed. Or let's just carry out a basic reorganization of the pension fund and, I believe, we will discover what percentage there is stolen on a systematic basis - large sums!

Question: What does the differentiated system you mentioned involve? That pensioners will decide for themselves whether to retire or continue working? But, it seems, even now they have a choice...

Boris Kagarlitsky: The problem is not whether they will remain working or not. They will still continue to work. We have a specific system in Russia: working pensioners are the backbone of the working class in the country. The problem is whether they will receive pensions. Now the situation is this: a person receives a pension and continues to work, and our pensions for working pensioners are small. In a number of regions, there are bonuses that go only to non-working pensioners.

In Russia, a unique system has emerged with small pensions, but the opportunity to work full-time without restrictions at retirement age. This system has a number of advantages. For example, similar Western systems in most countries do not allow you to receive a full pension and a full salary. You must either give up part of your pension or the full amount. In Russia you can combine, which is a big advantage of the Russian system. The downside is the size of pensions; accordingly, those who can no longer work are doomed to a miserable, miserable pension.

In principle, it is not very difficult to create a system that would regulate this problem. You can take a variable system as a basis, not these idiotic points that no one can accurately calculate, but several option schemes that establish different ratios of pension and wages depending on some specific conditions: a person completely refuses to work, partially or remains for a full day. And after a while, a choice of options is offered again. Predicting how people will behave is also not difficult. In fact, for a good team of sociologists and economists, this is work for a week. Then it will be about how to make people better, and not about how to more money cut down in the pension fund or how to please the Ministry of Finance with indicators.

Question: What should the authorities do to increase pensions and provide older people with a decent old age?

Boris Kagarlitsky:Instead of stealing the budget, you can spend money on investments that will bring income to the budget.
The revenue side of the budget is the problem, not the expenditure side.
There is a famous formula that says that you should not spend less, but earn more.
Since the state in Russia, instead of earning money, is going to give everything to friends, it is clear that there will be nothing left either for pensioners or for the spheres of healthcare, science and education.
If the state earns more, the state will have more money that can be spent on social needs.
We need investments that bring income to the state, preferably also socially positive ones, that would raise lagging regions.

These are basic things that everyone knows, but no one in power needs them.
Please, there is the Finnish model of the 1990s, when a state company was created, which had the task of pumping money into the budget, at the same time raising high-tech industries and promoting the development of lagging regions.
As a result, in 10 years they pumped up so much money that Finland from a debtor country with a very large budget deficit turned into one of the European leaders in high-tech.
In eight years of work with the help of one state-owned company!

This is all elementary.
There are no problems, there is a lack of political will in Russia and an extreme interest in keeping things as bad as they are now, because although this is bad for the majority, it turns out to be a huge benefit for the minority.
source https://www.nakanune.ru/articles/113779/
---
Well, what is said in the title of the post is the most inspiring for middle-aged people:

Dear Russians are being hinted that there will be no pensions at all

"New pension system: if you don't save money, you die on the street"
Oreshkin: The issue of raising the retirement age is being discussed
The goal of joining the “80+ club” could become a demographic trap for Russia
VEB forecast: starting from 2020, the retirement age in Russia will gradually increase
Experts: Increasing VAT will lead to higher prices for all goods and an increase in the retirement age

Today the day began with a sudden confirmation - they are indeed returning.
This means there is reason for enthusiasm.
And an optimistic post.

The logic is simple.
An export-oriented economy exports not only goods and services.
An export-oriented economy also exports income and business activity.
The latter greatly impacts the opportunities for economic development within the country, which has built an economic model of trade expansion.

Marxists even have a name for the bourgeoisie, which operates in a model of foreign trade expansion.
It is called comprador, and there is nothing worse than it.

Do you know why?

Because the activities of such a bourgeoisie are assessed unambiguously by Marxists: it robs the country, wasting the forces of society on the production of goods and services for other countries and peoples, and mainly exports the proceeds from this.

Of course, this is too straightforward, simplistic and deliberately class-conflicting interpretation.
Nevertheless, there is significant meaning in it.

In the model of foreign trade expansion, the big bourgeoisie actually exports more than it leaves at home.
She is cosmopolitan.
Some of the exported wealth will never actually return to their homeland.

Does this mean that the country is only impoverished and degraded?
And this very exporting bourgeoisie is extremely harmful.

No, that doesn't mean it.
Firstly, part of the capital still remains.
Even exporting businessmen need to visit Russia and keep their staff here, which is paid at the highest level and brings into the country other ways of working, consuming, and living.

Secondly, capital leaves the country for the simple reason that the domestic economy cannot absorb it.
The flow of money generated by exports is higher than investment opportunities within the country.
But capital accumulates, although externally, in the hands of the national bourgeoisie.
If she is returned, she will come with this same money.

Question: How to create conditions for returning?
How to “nationalize the business elite”?

It is clear that conditions need to be created to make it profitable for businesses to invest within the country.
But this is easier said than done.
We need to break one, export-oriented model.
And build another, new one, focused on the domestic market.

Until it is built, business does not want to work in the new paradigm.
But you cannot build a model without the participation of business.

However, today we can not only theorize on this topic, but also see a practical answer.
In Russia, this process seems to have started.

I open my mail today, and there is a weekly review of the Republic publication.
I don’t have a paid subscription, but they send me reviews.
So, the first to be presented is Oleg Kashin’s article “De-Westernization of Usmanov. Imagine that instead of the West there is a sea.”

And he literally writes the following:
“Tashkent Pakhtakor instead of English Arsenal.” China instead of London. Government orders instead of entering Western markets. Alisher Usmanov is bringing to life what seemed like anti-science fiction ten years ago. The long-standing dream of patriotic ideologists is being realized in the era of sanctions.”

I don’t know how Kashin developed his idea, there is no subscription.
But he states a real fact - Usmanov returned his capital and, most importantly, his business activity to Russia.
And this, in my opinion, is the main condition for the transition to an intra-trade economy model.

In this model, money from exports is used in the country and invested in the production of goods and services.
The elite is interested in the people, since they and their income are one of the main sources of domestic demand.
The economy (production) is actively growing and developing in a competitive environment.
The people earn money and get richer.

By the way, it is the intra-trade economy that provides a powerful stimulus to what was previously called the scientific and technological revolution (scientific and technological revolution), and is now called the next wave of technological progress.
Whichever country enters the phase of intra-trade economic development, it begins to produce new technologies, setting the tone for the whole world.
And this is exactly how I see our near future.

What is the main question here?
What's more important:
- foreign investment, easy access to foreign technologies and loans;
- or the return of large Russian businesses to the economy along with their owners, their business activity, ability to organize a business, willingness to invest and develop the country’s economy?
What will ensure the future of Russia?

It seems to me that it is the second one.
Foreign investment will never be aimed at solving the country's development problems; it will always be a kind of bubble with preferences.

Technology, one way or another, can always be bought.
And given high business activity, it’s easy to come up with, invent.

But high business activity and a competitive environment can only be ensured by domestic business.
And their own businessmen.

If sanctions are the only way to return big businessmen to the country and provide a new trade and economic model with building materials, then I am for sanctions.
This, by the way, is also the answer to the question of whether they are harmful or not.

In some ways, they are certainly harmful.
But they are somewhat useful.
If this is not the only way to move from a model of foreign trade expansion to a model of an intratrade economy.

For us, this is an unprecedented miracle.
In Russia, such an economic model has never existed.
Accordingly, no one believes that this is even possible.
Especially in the current conditions.
Especially with the current authorities.

But we see how this is happening: businessmen are returning, a model is being formed.
An independent and not very friendly source confirms this as a fact.