A special way: Russia remained the only G20 country that does not help its citizens

A special way: Russia remained the only G20 country that does not help its citizens

27 April , 11:59
Social media analysts criticize this position of the Russian authorities from all points of view.

Russia remained the only G20 country that did not provide direct assistance to its citizens. This fact causes a lot of interpretations in social networks and media.

So network analyst Anatoly Nesmiyan puts in his blog, the diagnosis of our country:

“This is the real level of civilization and development...”

The publicist Sergei Mitrofanov, however, is not at all surprised by what is happening:

“I don’t understand these conversations about the fact that they say they help business and people, they tell the truth on TV and that there is no police arbitrariness there. And what would you like? In countries where there is an economy and society, institutions work. In a country (Russia), where there is no economy and society, there are no institutions and a responsible government, it is prescribed to suck a finger. This is logical and logical, and there’s no one to be offended ... "

A detailed analysis of the situation, and also not in favor of the position of the authorities, journalist Vasily Alenin:

“To give or not to give - there is no such question. Do not give! Arguments against giving money to people in the current crisis are absurd and deceitful.

The brains of our elite are still not affected by the corona, but by the socialist virus. Long and hopelessly. They do not know how to think in a market way in principle. And unbridled greed and indifference to people just rolls over ...

A simple dilemma seems to be: giving money to people or business. (We leave in parentheses the purely Russian idea of not giving anything to anyone at all).

Who needs the money? Of course, to people. They have nothing to eat. 2/3 of Russians did not have savings and the 5th week of actual quarantine is a problem for everyone who is not state employees (those who continue to receive their salaries from the state).

But, it turns out, you can’t give people categorically!


Here is the head of the Central Bank of Nabiullina. It speaks of a fall in domestic demand and the risks of a slowdown in inflation “significantly” below 4%. But at the same time, it’s against distributing money to the population, because it will lead to an “explosion of inflation”.

One is clearly contrary to the other. Where is the explosion from? After all, this only compensates for the fall in domestic demand ... Yes, if you give out a million, there will be an “explosion." But, dear central banker, you count how much to give out safely. For example, 20 or 30 thousand rubles. in month According to our ideas, this only compensates for the existing failure of demand and no more. And no “explosion” and even a surge in inflation will not even be close ...

Ksenia Sobchak: “From the point of view of common sense, it does not seem to me an effective measure to simply distribute money to the population. This money will burn, as if on fire. People will eat them. ”

This is not common sense, but absurdity. Maybe people don’t have to pay at all, they will eat their salary, that is, they will “burn it up”. The feeling that the snickering socialite is discussing the problems of the plebs: is there no bread? Well, let them eat cakes! Ksenia, go down to the ground. People do not have enough money for food. And as a businesswoman, does it seem “effective” to help you, not yours, but your business?

Head of Sberbank Gref. His arguments against it are generally either unsuitable for professionalism or outright lies. “We do not have the market source of money that the US and the EU have. We don’t have so many tools through which we can attract similar amounts of funds. ”

He carefully ignores three obvious facts.

1. The state has a NWF (National Welfare Fund) and just money in accounts - 18 trillion rubles. There is a resource due to which you can pay people without resorting to government loans. No "tools" are needed for this. 2. Government loans in the United States or Europe are not entirely funded by market-based government loans. They are mostly bought by the Fed and the European Central Bank. These are completely non-market methods of financing government spending. Nothing prevents us from resorting to them if we wish: the CBR can buy up a little public debt on its balance sheet, as its “elder brothers” do. 3. Finally, state-owned banks may well buy up the next tranche of the state loan - this was confirmed by the head of VTB, Kostin, at a meeting with the president, where the government wanted to get "good" for new loans. And Nabiullina, by the way, boasted of reserves of capital and liquidity at banks there. So we have quite enough market instruments.

We already wrote about Sobyanin’s opinion that “budgets will crack” ...

An erysipelas at someone will crack from an overabundance of money - you have 18 trillion rubles. at disposal. This is our money that you squeezed from us into your “budget reserves”, supposedly for a “rainy day”. He has come, give us them. This is just right.

All arguments not to give money directly to people are absurd, far-fetched, sometimes simply false. Because in fact there are no serious objections to the idea itself. It is reasonable and useful not only for people, but also for the economy as a whole - it will support weakened final demand and prevent it from falling too deeply. It is no coincidence that it is used in many countries of the world.

The real question that needs to be discussed is not whether to give people money or not. But only in how much, for how long, in what way. But the authorities refuse to discuss these details in principle. Covering your greed with absurd excuses ... "

And the economist Eugene Gontmakher put forward his version of this behavior of the authorities:

“Russia, due to the refusal of direct assistance to the population and business, is becoming a black sheep in the international community. Of the G20 member countries, only we do not. Thus, in the eyes of world leaders, Russia demonstrates its weakness at critical moments, in contrast to countries that, during “rising from our knees”, began to seem so worthless to us that we could not reckon with them. This, of course, fundamentally contradicts the plans of our government to take advantage of the current global crisis to “nullify” sanctions against Russia and move to a world in which 5 permanent members of the Security Council rule and where Russia will not sit on a high chair.

So why doesn’t Vladimir Putin give the command to the government to somehow open the bins of the Motherland? The point here is even that he does not want to actually agree with the constantly multiplying supporters of direct payments. Although this is typical of his behavior: he constantly demonstrates that he does not succumb to external pressure, including from the public opinion of his own country. It seems to me that he is waiting for the moment when the beginning of these payments will bring him the maximum political result. Now that the epidemic has not yet reached its peak, such payments will be perceived, of course, positively. Although much depends on how exactly this will be organized, our state has long lost its managerial qualifications for the quick implementation of simple and understandable decisions.

But let's say everything will be done as it should. However, the effect will be very short-term and will not facilitate in any way the transition to the post-coronavirus time. But there we are facing the All-Russian vote on constitutional amendments and the 75th anniversary of the Victory with the desirable presence of world leaders. And most importantly: when the pandemic begins to end, there will come a time of "debriefing" not only at the "top". Many people, having survived the most difficult quarantine tests, will start to ask the authorities uncomfortable questions about how we can live on and whether it is possible to pretend that the virus was only a fleeting episode and therefore it is not necessary to change anything in our orders and state structure.

Therefore, the President, judging by his actions, is trying in every possible way to delay the time of issuing "gifts" to the people. This is a very risky game in which you can easily lose ... "

A very interesting and comprehensive analysis of the situation was made by network analyst Boris Tolchinsky on his blog:

“I explain, point by point, why people are not handed out money,“ as in civilized countries, ”although there is a lot of them in the small box.

  1. The collapse of the USSR for Putin is in fact the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century, but it is geopolitical: the world giant fell, who carried the entire post-war world order. There is no regret about the Soviet social state; it died so died.
  2. There is no trust in the people. Hence the manual control, and this eternal "to prevent people from making mistakes." For the post-Soviet oligarchy regime, these are not citizens, but the population, the ignorant, unconscious mass. If you just give out money, people will drink it. Nefig again to produce parasites. Let them spin and survive themselves: what is earned is valued more than it is distributed. The post-Soviet regime wants to seem paternalistic, but, unlike the Soviet one, it’s not ready to BE.
  3. And he does not believe that people really do not have money: his statistics say something else. If someone does not have money, then this is within the framework of statistical error, and this can be neglected in the name of the highest interests of the state. Contrary to the ignoramuses and romantics, the poor do not constitute a political force to be reckoned with. Strength is made only by those who have something to lose. And if there is something to lose, then there is money. Well, then why give them away?
  4. The arguments of some economists, they say, money must be handed out in order to start the economy are not perceived: for the liberal-oligarchic regime, the economy is completely different, and it starts differently: with huge infrastructure projects. And not all of this that people stupidly buy in stores. Accordingly, for Big Capital there is money, for medium and small businesses it is not: let me say thanks again that they are not as nightmare as they could.
  5. Case of Joseph the Beautiful has not been canceled! This is sacred, the basics of kudrinomika. All the fat years we have accumulated a small egg, diligently preparing for the skinny. And when they arrived, who would believe that they would end so soon? Who will believe that they were saving in vain, but it was better to invest in production? Yes, frivolous Europeans and Americans, with their centuries-old economy, can afford to live one day, one year; here, on a Russian scale, we need to look beyond the horizon, otherwise we cannot survive. If you give out money now - what will be left for later? And if you don’t leave money for later - then everything will collapse! If the liberal-oligarchic regime believed in the people and the economy, it would count on them that there, at the exit from the crisis, a new growth would begin. But he does not believe, and as long as there is a small egg, as long as it is full, he would rather believe in it, so it is more reliable.
  6. And one subtle psychological moment. For people who have VERY MUCH MONEY, but besides money, there is nothing for their souls - no faith, no ideology, no values, no goals, no empathy - it is fundamentally important to seem better than those who have all this, but not enough money. If these first ones suddenly begin to give out money - what will they be better than the latter? What would be the best offspring of a scientist from the Russian hinterland than the offspring of an oligarch, a gargler who does not think of himself outside of London and Courchevel? What brainless hipster blogger-balabol from YouTube will be better than a professional doctor who works all day, saving lives? This will cause catastrophic damage to the self-awareness of the elite, its sense of superiority and self-worth, and then it can leave the banks. Which is unacceptable to the liberal oligarchic regime.
  7. Moreover, the existing regime is not liberal-oligarchic in the same classical sense as the regimes of Barras or Louis-Philippe in France in 1795-1799 and 1830-1848, respectively. No, we also have a plebiscite, he needs the support of a voting population. But he does not need her constantly! Now - rather no than yes. If the covid had happened before significant elections, the regime would have behaved differently.

All of the above does not mean that they will not give out money at all. Will be! But only when, after weighing the political risks, they come to the conclusion: giving out is cheaper than not giving out. This is not connected with the economy and welfare. Perhaps it will be connected later, when life will require more specific actions ... "

But network analyst Dmitry Milin offered another option:

“It is not necessary to give money to people, it is necessary to return social taxes (30% of the salary) and personal income tax (13% of the salary) to those enterprises that paid them at the rate of 2 months of return (ie 86% of the paid salary (n) for one month of “forced self-isolation”. It is necessary to redistribute money from the parasitic class of officials and "siloviks" in favor of those who feed them !!! And let the state save money on returned money on itself, on purchases of limousines, on bonuses and business trips! Let the state halve the salaries of all civil servants for the time of the epidemic: mayors, Central Bank employees, along with Nabiullina, the entire government, all deputies ... "

Let’s see whose voice the Russian authorities listen to. Most likely, as usual, to no one...

Found a typo in the text? Select it and press ctrl + enter