Truth and speculation about the mobilization economy: why is it needed today

The NWO exacerbated many of the contradictions that had accumulated over the years. Paradoxical as it may seem, but the current situation really makes it possible to resolve those issues that have hampered the normal socio-economic development of our country for decades. In this part, the mobilization economy is the very conceptual approach that seems to be the most relevant and justified in the current situation. So what does it consist of? And what is a mobilization economy?

I repeat once again: this is not only and not so much about tanks and ammunition, although it is important and necessary to produce them. Here, general approaches to the management of the national economy at the macroeconomic level are fundamental. I will outline three fundamental points that characterize the essence and content of the mobilization economy.

First, it is a national economic approach. There is no private money and no public money. There is common people’s money that works for common priorities, common tasks and common values. If the state has defined and formulated goals for the development of, say, mechanical engineering, but it doesn’t matter what resources are attracted to solve this issue – public, private, concession, borrowed, issued … Here the priority is important, or rather, the achievement of the designated goals within the specified time frame. I will give a simple example from, let’s say, peaceful life: urban public transport. Now in this area we are witnessing an absolute diversity of the economy, starting with municipal electric transport and ending with concession roads and private carsharing. And the consumer here, in principle, is not interested in the origin of investments in public transport, if everything works in a single system and allows the passenger to regularly receive a quality service. At the same time, I repeat, the state is not withdrawing from the management of the public transport system. It is present in it both as an investor, and as a regulator, and as a protector of the interests of the passenger. A similar (or similar) situation should be observed in all industries and in all areas of activity, from retail to heavy engineering.

In fact, mobilization implies the transfer of the entire economic process to the regime of a federal state order. Only this order should imply the satisfaction not only of direct state needs, but is intended to reflect the production of all goods and services needed in the country. If for this it is necessary to form Gosplan 2.0 on modern technological platforms, then let’s do it right now.

Second, there is a need for a transition within the country to the “from competition to cooperation” mode. Today, we are all part of one large national economic system in which everyone participates jointly, doing a common thing, and all relations within this system are of an “intra-economic” nature. Taking into account the departure of hundreds of foreign companies from our market, significant opportunities are opening up for the development and increase in domestic production. Places, as they say, enough for everyone. Given the market of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the expansion of its free trade area, these opportunities become more substantial.

As practice shows, cooperation relations often lie on the surface, they only need to be put into active mode. The state in this matter can act as a moderator, that is, a direct organizer of cooperative contacts and contracts at the regional and federal levels. An analysis of the existing situation of relations between subcontractors often reveals paradoxical things: sometimes an entrepreneur does not even know that there is literally a supplier in his region, for example, of the technological equipment he needs. The entrepreneur habitually ordered this equipment abroad, but now he has encountered difficulties in supplying it. People simply go to different restaurants in their usual life, and they simply do not know about each other. And in this case, I am not giving a metaphor, but a real example from a particular Siberian region. Only through the emergence of the function of a cooperative moderator (which can only be the state), all participants in economic relations, regardless of the form of ownership, turn from a club of “free entrepreneurs” into a really working economic system. And this is also mobilization, this is also the transfer of familiar relations to a new level of systemic development.

Finally, the third, and perhaps most important. We need to move, in fact, to the closed nature of the national finance system. We absolutely need to stop paying at least some attention to the flow of currency from abroad. Export is just a matter of profitability of economic entities, and not a national super-task. At the federal level, domestic economic development is now, without exaggeration, more important than exports. No one calls for a ban or abandonment of export relations, but we simply have no right to determine the capitalization of our national economy by the influx of foreign exchange resources from abroad. And this is a matter, firstly, of national security, since we should not depend not only on imports, but also on exports. And secondly, it is also a question of saturating our economy with the necessary financial resources. Here I mean that for a long time the volume of the money supply in our country was determined by the volume of the currency coming into the country, which was received from that same export. At the same time, the government, based on the notorious “budget rule”, found the so-called “surplus” from foreign exchange earnings and sent it to the National Welfare Fund (NWF). This practice has existed for many years. As a result, we received trillions of rubles in the National Welfare Fund (some of which turned out to be blocked for us by our foreign “partners”). At the same time, our economy turned out to be monstrously underfunded and one of the lowest monetized in the world. Why am I saying this? And to the fact that in the conditions of mobilization relations we need to reconsider both the approach to the formation of the NWF and the principles for determining the money supply in our common economic system.

Just the other day, by decision of the government, one trillion rubles was transferred from the NWF to the federal budget. And this is a step in the right direction. You can not “sit on the money” in the conditions of their total shortage. But this, as they say, is not enough. We need to reasonably and consciously saturate our economy with the necessary financial resources. Our country has accumulated a huge production, scientific, technical and resource potential. At the same time, as experts say, this potential is provided with financial resources only by 50%. That is, our economy is only half provided with money for its own existence and development. What is money? This is a monetary expression of production and economic relations. Essentially a mirror. So this very mirror reflects our reality, so to speak, only partially. The real capitalization of our economy is now significantly higher than the money supply available in the country. Accordingly, the volume of this very money supply can be increased by one and a half to two times without any inflationary risks, and the economy will only benefit from this.

If we are afraid of uncontrolled growth in the money supply and all sorts of corruption risks, then let’s use digital rubles. The central bank has been telling us for a year that it intends to test it. Perhaps, under the conditions of mobilization, it is necessary to shorten the period of test use and bring the digital ruble to the market in the near future?

In conclusion, I would like to add several key aspects of the transition to the mobilization model of the national economy in terms of responding to the already emerging misconceptions about this approach.

First, a mobilization economy does not imply the transfer of the entire national economy to a military footing. The principle “Everything for the front – everything for victory!” primary. But this does not mean at all that the economy should forget about civilian products. Under the conditions of mobilization, all plants and factories must work and produce the products needed by the unified national economic system. This is the basic approach. And, by the way, it will make it possible to find and update the production and other reserves available in the country.

Secondly, the mobilization economy does not imply a reduction in state social obligations. This is an urgent military necessity. The fulfillment of social obligations “loads” the relevant organizations and institutions not only with work, but also with finances, which also stimulates national economic development. We must forget that the social sphere, the pension system and social relations in general are costly. It’s a delusion. The strategic stability of the economy, which is especially necessary in the context of economic mobilization, is based, among other things, on financial resources attracted to social relations. I’m not talking about the fact that all pensions, benefits and other social payments remain almost completely in the national economy, turn into investment resources, working for its reproduction.

Thirdly, the mobilization economy, as I said above, of course, does not cancel exports. But it is important to understand that victory is not forged in export relations, but in the organization and financing of the economic process within the country.

Fourth, the mobilization economy is not designed to ignore the interests of producers in the context of partial mobilization. And here the state must create conditions for the influx of young people to enterprises, when some of its employees are mobilized. Similar solutions already exist, for example, in Kuzbass. And it is important to replicate them in the system as a whole.

Fifth, the mobilization economy is not forever. It is known that mobilization as a national strategy is always temporary, and it is important to create conditions so that mobilization in the foreseeable future would be transformed into modernization based on accumulated experience and through attracting resources from the external environment.

Based on the foregoing, in conclusion, I would like to note that we should not be afraid of the mobilization economy. We must be afraid that the economy will suddenly become useless to anyone. And then there will be neither mobilization nor modernization. Maybe there won’t even be a country. We already went through this at the turn of the 80-90s. I definitely don’t want to go back there.