Текст книги "To Understanding of Macroeconomу of State and World"
Автор книги: (IP of the USSR) Internal Predictor of the USSR
сообщить о нарушении
Текущая страница: 2 (всего у книги 4 страниц)
That kind of management has some immanent limits of structure growth, beyond which it stops being efficient, and the structures generated by it come to self-destruction due to unavoidable errors made by the administrators.
Human wants, both individual and social (the whole society) cannot be satisfied (as the historic record shows) on the basis of the directive and address management of product exchange in households or community household, which generates an economic macrolevel that includes e plethora of specialized industries (branches). The macrolevel brings to life commerce, that is an uncontrollable directive and address exchange of products.
The early commerce was barter trade: they directly exchanged the goods produced by them for the goods produced by other people using a single-stage scheme «G1ЮG2» for satisfaction of their own needs of for using them in further production process.
Some of the variety of goods were easy to exchange, the others were difficult to exchange in case of direct barter trade, which slackened the exchange of goods at the macrolevel and suppressed the public production growth. As a result, easy-to exchange goods came to the front and turned into the indirect barter commodity in the double-stage scheme «G1ЮMЮG2» when the direct barter «G1ЮG2» was either hampered or impossible. The goods that proved to be easiest to exchange constituted the ‘money group’ of commodities to be used for barter trade purposes.
It is reasonable to assume that the transition of the society to the exchange of commodities at a macrolevel with the use of two-step scheme «G1ЮMЮG2» laid the foundation of financial institutions. Those financial institutions primarily provided an opportunity of autoregulation of the macrolevel exchange of commodities in the society.
Afterwards the adjustment of in the autoregulation mode turned manageable. As a result, the system of financial institutions became the means of indirect expedient management of the exchange of goods at th macrolevel, and the ‘spontaneity’ of the market of goods and services submitted to the ‘monetary charmers’ whose only motivation reduced to sustaining their ability to pay when dealing with commodity money, ‘D’, belonging to the money group. Once that professional sponging became supranational and corporative, the freedom of private enterprise and liberty of trade turned into false myths and obsessions.
However, those obsessions made most of the population mad, and the INDIVIDUAL dependence of a private entrepreneur on the dictate of administrative bodies, a slaveholder, a feudal or another type of the superior was replaced by not any less violent mass dependence on the monetary ‘spontaneity’. The corporation of usurers and moneychangers ‘pretended’ to be ordinary private entrepreneurs, who are not perceived by the muzzy audience as the slaveholders and the lords of the monetary ‘spontaneity’, which enslaved even its ‘charmers’, that is usurers and moneychangers.
Finance and credit system should intrinsically be the means of assembling of a variety of MICROECONOMIES (which produce goods and services of real consumer values) into a single, unified macroeconomics (i.e. a multi-sector system of production and consumption). Irrespective of the way it copes with macro-economic tasks, it has one more function, being a tool of distribution autoregulation in the society, when the goods supply spectrum[2] goes lower than the needs spectrum of the society, and the needs are not limited by the purchasing capacity.
The following two functions of the credit and financial system are significant for management. They can be:
the means of macro-economy assembling from a number of micro-economies.
the tool of distribution autoregulation, when the goods supply spectrum is not sufficient comparing to the free needs of the society.
As a mean of macro-economy assembling from a number of micro-economies[3] and a tool of MANAGEBLE distribution autoregulation, it must provide the disappearance of the deficiency of goods and services all over the demographically-defined needs spectrum and maintain the exchange of commodities in accordance with it.
The rest is either collateral (to the two above functions) consumer’s effects, or various distorted applications of credit-and-finance system accompanied by sponging on the human labour and on the biosphere.
The historical evidence: if a credit-and-finance system is unable to support production and distribution at a macrolevel in accordance with the destination, that means it is maliciously adjusted in a way allowing the degradation-parasite spectrum to suppress the demographically determined one. In that case a great number of small and big businesspeople, clerks, their economic advisors and journalists are the actuating mechanisms pushing the society to suicide, whereas the degraded rest will be enslaved to follow instructions of the behind-the-scenes managers of the Biblical-Talmudic project of enslaving the humankind.
That kind of behaviour of lots of people is mainly a consequence of their blind acceptance (with no reflection) of all the aspects of public theology (in the past) and social sciences, that is economics for ‘clerks’ and for the crowd (including Marxism) nowadays.
2.3. What is what in credit-and-finance system. Credit-and-finance system as the means of production and distribution management.
Not only does the public economic science ‘for clerks’ lack managerially significant notions to do with the real production and consumption (i.e. demographically defined and degradation-parasite spectrum), but it also lacks a number of managerially significant notions that describe the credit-and-finance system itself and its links with the exchange of commodities as such. Actually, that is just what makes the economic theories ‘for clerks’ inconsistent and, therefore, inapplicable to solving the macrolevel economic problems to receive the predetermined, ‘pre-ordered’, promised and guaranteed results.
The basic notion that makes the economic theories for masters to be consistent in metrological terms is the ‘price-list invariant’.
The ‘price-list invariant’ has always been defined in such a way, that in a barter trade system, where the goods are exchanged using a two-stage scheme «G1ЮMЮG2», there is such a commodity belonging to the money commodity group that possesses the following features:
firstly, it is a sovereign participant of the natural exchange of goods in the barter trade process because it has some additional valuable features apart from the fact that it constantly acts as commodity money in two-stage schemes «G1ЮMЮG2»;
secondly, the market prices of other goods for every single commodity-exchange deal are given in an equivalent amount of that commodity by common consent (as a result, the price of a standard unit of the invariant commodity calculated in the invariant amount is always equal to 1, which is behind the term ‘price-list invariant’. In other words, we always exchange an invariant to an invariant pro ratia 1/1.)
In the days of ancient barter trade, according to the laws enacted by Hammurapi, the King of Babylon, the society considered the payments in grain and gold to be equal, there fore, they established them as the two equal price-list invariants. Later, in the crowd-and-‘elite’ society, the ruling elite on the basis of its degradation-parasite needs deprived grain from the right to function as a price-list invariant, and the civilization used the gold invariant for a long time.
In economic studies and calculations we can use any commodity type as the price-list invariant, including the commodities that do not belong to the established money group.
Economics does not need the notion ‘price-list invariant’ only in case if researchers do not know how to select it in a way that will let them use the invariant for solving the macrolevel management problems. They do not now about it because they serve the ‘elite’ wants and needs, which belong to the degradation-parasite spectrum.
Gold as an invariant was used as the stuff for means of payment production – coins and standard bullion. Due to that fact, the whole йpoque of circulation of gold and other precious monetary metals as means of payment (up to the beginning of the XXth century) represented the йpoque of natural barter using the scheme «G1ЮMЮG2».
The only difference between that йpoque and the йpoque of traditional barter trade was the fact that ‘packing’ of the invariant into a shape of standard coin was transferred from the marketplace stalls to the Board of Treasury. However, that difference is not bigger than the one between buying tomatoes by weight from the stall at the market or buying nicely pre-packed tomatoes from the supermarket.
The difference between means of payment and the price-list invariant is that whereas the mean of payment, being the measure of prices fro all commodities (like the price-list invariant), can possess no other commonly recognizable values except playing the intermediate part of commodity money in a two-step scheme of exchange «G1ЮMЮG2», or be used in a single-stage scheme «GЮMЮ», when it plays a role of means of accumulation of nominal paying capacity.
Any means of payment that does not have any value outside the sphere of money circulation, accompanying and supporting the exchange of commodities for production and consumer purposes and accepted in certain transactions, may be rejected in other transactions. However, despite the means of payment may have no other value except being the means of payment or means of accumulation of nominal paying capacity, it can still be recognized having such qualities by the majority of population for a long time.
Economic theories ‘for clerks’ thoughtlessly inherited the notional system from the йpoque of circulation of ‘precious-metal’ coins and the gold standard. The functions of price-list invariant and those of means of payment are considered as if they were just different functions of the same money.
As the previous price-list invariant (gold) and means of payment (figures on bills and bones, and clearing – in the accounts, which represent the nominal paying capacity) were separated and stopped being the same kind of money, the economics for ‘clerks’ has lost its metrological consistency. As a result, we lost a possibility of calculating the financial indicators of production-and-consumption systems, whose spectrum of production and consumption is given on the basis of quantity.
If we do not have a possibility of single-value estimates of figures that have to do with various dates and regions, we are unable to analyze, forecast, plan or manage the economy at micro– or macrolevel. Consequently, the only motive of economics as a whole is a profit-motive; economists try to sell themselves at the top price. All the calculations and recommendations are useless (if not harmful), nobody is interested in them, except a narrow circle of people from the squeezes[4] of economists.
Being the measure of prices of other goods, the price-list invariant, however, in a general case does not act as a price level basis for the rest of the prices, including rates of exchange (the relative prices of foreign money). That is why all the suggestions aimed at the revival of the gold standard come from the grave misapprehension of the fact that the possibilities of distribution are stipulated by its production.
‘An attempt to ‘galvanize’ the dead body of gold standard or even restore the circulation of gold are useless in the йpoque of economic well-being. In Spain, from 1492 to 1600, in the times of perfectly working circulation of gold, the prices for goods tripled annually. It happened because the production spectrum of other products per head remained approximately the same, whereas the amount of gold, including the gold in monetary circulation, loomed drastically due to the gold flow from America, whose robbery had just started.
That historic fact shows how the price of the gold invariant dropped in comparison with the other implicit invariant (grain), which the society did not recognize in that role; however, grain still defined the price levels and all the other relative prices. That takes us to the notion of the ‘price-list foundation.
The price-list foundation is a small group of goods, each of which has the following feature: a short-term perceivable price growth for such goods cause a perceivable growth in production cost figures of the most of other goods. The reasons of the production cost increase of other goods is the direct or indirect consumption of the products from that small group for production of other goods (all or most of them).
Of course, the production cost growth is accompanied by the market price growth. Herein, the price relations between various pairs of goods and the cost-effectiveness of particular sectors undergo changes, because the prices are not only determined by production costs, but also by distribution of always limited effectual demand all over the goods and services supply spectrum.
From what we said above follows that to make economic calculations, long-term economic analysis and forecasts and long-term plans of social and economic development comparable, we have to select a price-list invariant which belongs to its base for the time span in question.
Ordinary people, politicians and economists should remember a well-known definition from the school course of physics:
“Useful work performed by a system” = “efficiency coefficient” ґ “power consumption of the system”
However, we may be interested in ‘useful work’ performed by a system, which is not seen in a sense of ‘mechanical work’ (which is a physical term). In that case, ‘useful work’ and ‘useful effect’ satisfy the same equation, but their dimensions will be different from physical dimensions of mechanical work and energy in physics. In that case the efficiency quotient will not be dimensionless.
[efficiency] = [the unit of measurement of a useful effect] / [the name of the unit of measurement of incoming energy].
Like anything else, the production system of a society obeys the general physical law of energy conservation, a partial form of which is the efficiency coefficient equation.
The useful effect of the production system of a society is represented in a natural form as an end-consumption product manufacturing spectrum.
Abstracting from the span of time needed for the growth of production capacities in each sector, and taking into consideration the whole lot of consumption of intermediate products for manufacturing purposes (because it is impossible to do without them when producing end products with the use of modern technologies), we will see that the industrial output level for each item throughout the production spectrum is limited by efficiency coefficient of technological processes[5] in the corresponding sector and by the amount of incoming energy.
Correspondingly,
The production spectrum as a whole has an upper limit. It is limited by:
the values of sector efficiencies of technologies (the dimension of technological efficiency is [unit of measurement of the output mount] / [kW/hr];
the amount of incoming energy for the whole system;
energy distribution by sectors.
The above means that when we move from physical indicators of a production-and-consumption system to their monetary expression, we can see that the primary base of the price-list is its energy base. In other words, energy prices determine all the other price levels, when the established needs of the society undergo slow changes in comparison to the production dynamics.
The words in italics mean that human needs are primary to pricing, whereas the labour theory of pricing (value) in its historically established form is metrologically inconsistent.
The reason of inconsistency of the labour theory of value, which the public economics has not been able to get rid of, is the fact that all the people seen as workers taking part in diversified production are mutually incommensurable. The progress of professional management sectors, processing of various data, including professional research and design work, led to the state when severity rate (man-hours) as the unit of measurement, or the units of rating of work load needed to gain useful effects, have lost their managerial value not only when we compare different sectors but even within individual sectors.
They used to be managerially valuable until manual labour of great numbers of people was the main basis of economic well-being , and, in the first place, of the ruling ‘elite’, which despised professional gainful activities, considered itself to be ‘free’ and embezzled the fruits of labour and the incomes of the employees enslaved by them.
People can be compared to each other only as the consumers in accordance with the demographically defined needs spectrum. That is why the ‘hour rate’ has the managerial value because it defines the paying capacity of the population, and in turn, its purchasing power as well as most of the consumption spectrum. However that indicator is useless when it comes to evaluation of the output performance.
Another indicator that has the managerial value is the ratio of electricity rate to hour rate in different sectors and regions in comparison with the demographically defined consumption spectrum[6].
The energy base of the price-list has permanently been present all through the span of the history of civilization; however it consists of a changeable composition of power sources, whose component weights are also prone to changes. All the history of the modern global civilization can be separated into two йpoques:
till the middle of XIXth century; it was the period when production was mainly based on the prevailing biogenetic power, which source is photosynthesis in plants (which means that the natural flora and crop production efficiency are the roots of well-being).
since the beginning of XX century – the йpoque of production based on the prevalence of technogenic power.
There was a transitional period that lasted for several decades, during which a transition from biogenic to technogenic power sources was made, when we could witness a superposition of both.
It follows from what was said above that the society of the Hammurapi period did not make a mistake choosing grain as a price-list invariant. At that time grain was the main source of biogenic, power both for people and draft-cattle. It was easily available for consumption grain amount that determined the upper limit that could not be exceeded by the contemporary production capacities with respect to the engineering capabilities of the time.
Modern professional economic science and ordinary people make a grave mistake having chosen an American dollar – a currency of one of many countries – as a pseudo-invariant, despite the fact that none of the modern monetary units belong to primary (energy-based) price-list foundation; what is more, it is not a sovereign participant of production-and-consumption exchange of commodities, but only follows and supports it.
Since the second half of the XXth century, the best choice for the price-list invariant of technologically developed countries has been kWh of energy consumption, because:
the overwhelming majority of businesses are electric power consumers;
electric power tariffs are a part of energy base of a price-list.
Herein, financial and economic analysis and the forecasts gains the metrological consistency and comparability for long-lasting time intervals in case all the calculated and real prices, costs and other financial indicators are measured in kWh.
But even if we have accepted the electric power invariant, we should remember that in other sectors beyond agriculture the number of workers is limited by the ability of agricultural infrastructure to feed its personnel (otherwise the coverage of the deficiency of own products has to be guaranteed by means of imports). Therefore, the dynamics of the ration of the number of people dealing in agriculture to the number of people dealing in other industries ought to be targeted at the efficiency growth in agriculture, first and foremost at crop production and natural flora (photosynthesis is the core of everything).
Nowadays and for the foreseen future, the best choice for the invariant seems to be kWh, but not ‘a ton of fuel equivalent’, for ‘a ton of fuel equivalent’ represents an abstract notion created as a result of vain attempts to find the proper foundation for comparability of economic reports and business analysis without rejecting the hangover of public economic science ‘for clerks’.
‘A ton of fuel equivalent’ may have a limited right-to-life when used in analysis of the energy complex sector; however it is not applicable for long-term economic analysis, forecasting or planning, because the way it is linked with real energy carriers transforms together with the changes in technological foundation of production, predominantly in energy industries. Unlike that unit, kWh of consumption remains the same and does not depend on the particulars of primary energy source spectrum lying in the foundation, or how the spectrum responds to the consequences of technological progress.
Having selected an unchangeable kWh of power consumption as a price-list invariant, belonging to its energy base, we can deal with long-term planning of production in accord with the demographically dependent needs spectrum by means of simulation and optimisation of distribution options in the continuity of production cycles of energy consumption among the specialized sectors, which produce goods and services.
We should remember that the plan is to determine the minimum production levels in the sectors, below which the output should not fall. It is not supposed to chose record targets, the attempts of achieving which will lead the diversified production to an inevitable fall, for in such a case it will not be provided with the necessary amounts of power and raw materials.
The above approach implies that a stability margin is, institutionally and purposively, put in the plan, which lets some resources to remain in a free state to be used for compensation of possible errors and emergency situations (natural disasters, catastrophes, etc). In that case, the technological progress as a whole is the growth of ergonomic features and durability (where it makes sense) of the output; the increase of efficiency coefficients in sectors, the higher efficiency of household and other types of appliances, as well as the outgrowth (in comparison to the plan) of the power availability per sector. They all make a plan to be stable. As a result, real life cannot be worse than it was planned if the state supports intersectorial and interregional solvency proportions by means of tax-and subvention policy to implement the plan of the social and economic development of the country, by controlling the profitability threshold of businesses in accordance with the plan, and by responding to the real changes of market prices.
The main methodological fault of the planning system of the former USSR and of Soviet economic school caused by ill-will of Soviet ‘elite’, especially ‘scientific elite’, was that the Soviet Gosplan:
did not refuse from metrologically insolvent Marxist political economy, based on categories that could not be measured, so it could not be linked with practical accounting tasks;
tried to assimilate to the conditions of the USSR managerially-illiterate economic theories and models of the western science for ‘clerks’;
did not come ON TIME (having a great practical experience at hand), off its own bat, to the same conclusions that we are making here.
Since the ‘elites’ want to target the macroeconomics of the society to a knowingly unpredictable degradation-parasite needs spectrum, not only is the system of demographically-defined long-term planning necessary, but it is also a direct obstacle to implementation an ill-will policy. That thesis, which is true for the modern global economy of the humankind, explains the moral background and the character of the reforms in the USSR and in Russia from 1985 till 1999.
In a multi-industry system of production and consumption, the prices for goods from the base of the price-list, are among the factors which determine, directly or indirectly, the profitability threshold, that is the profitability values corresponding to minimum prices; if the prices drop lower than such values, the production and modern renewal of productive forces becomes detrimental. The price-list bases play that role whether the invariant is obvious, or unidentified.
Issuing and acceptance of paper money, so called, ‘credit money’, led to separation into the obvious price-list invariant (at that time it was gold) and the main payment facilities – the carrier of nominal solvency value, mutually recognized by the participants of the exchange of goods (paper slips). The appearance of a means of payment which does not have any value outside the credit-and-finance system led to a drastic change in pricing comparing with the йpoque of barter trade (which had lasted until the gold circulation age).
Because of the separation into the obvious invariant and means of payment, the purchasing power and nominal paying capacity turned into different economic indicators, which could change independently. This is how they are different:
nominal paying capacity is represented directly by the amount of means of payment;
purchasing power is represented only in the consumption spectrum, in some kind of ‘consumer goods basket’ which can be purchased for a particular sum of the means of payment when there is an established nominal price-list.
Nominal paying capacity is a measure of purchasing power and economic wealth only for a certain price-list and a certain consumption spectrum (‘consumer goods basket’). It has no managerial value per se.
Respectively, the masters are those who, directly or indirectly, manage (turning that activity to their own advantage) the purchasing power of a monetary unit and the distribution of nominal paying capacity among the participants of production-and consumption exchange of goods. It is accompanied by the re-distribution of the purchasing power that, in turn, represents an indirect macrolevel management by means of production-and consumption exchange of goods.
The above means that all the tasks of macroeconomic management cannot be solved by the statehood, if there is a global, supranational usury corporation behind the purchasing power of a currency, and if the active generations within the society do not realize the mechanism of management behind those processes, so they are do not know how to create an alternative to be used to protect their own statehood and its economic policy. They are the slaves of the tycoons pulling the strings, and they pay off the costs of their slavery[7] themselves, however, the tycoons always became the hostages of their own parasitism.
Monetary unit purchasing power management is the management of the dependence that has one-to-one correspondence with the price-list invariant.
In the days of gold standard the law concerning the exchange of paper and other kinds of money for gold provided the uniqueness of that dependence. However, if we introduce the direct elecric power invariant, the tariffs on electric power consumption will not be an energy counterpart of the ‘gold standard’. It is due to the fact that the character of credit money exchange for gold at a fixed rate (which was the main point of the ‘golden standard’) is different from the character of electric power consumption for production or consumer exchange of goods in a society.
The exchange volume of credit money was not determined by the needs of production or consumer exchange of goods (gold coins and credit money coped with goods exchange equally well). It was determined by social nervousness and psychological instability, which led to an intense exchange of the bills for gold, when purchasing power of the means of payment really dropped, or the wealthy social layers expected it to drop soon. In such cases they sought for ‘accumulators’ where they would be able to keep the purchasing power of their money till the better times come, so they disposed of extra nominal paying capacity by investing the money into gold, real estate (land), antiques, works of art etc. If the resulting demand for gold soared, it was impossible to keep the ‘gold standard’ at the previously established level of gold backing of ‘slips’, and such impossibility emerged as a result of existing disturbances in paper money circulation and the connection between the parameters of paper money circulation with the exchange of goods as such.
Thus, the need of devaluation in terms of the transition to a new value of the ‘gold standard’ in case the energy dependent price-list invariant was indirect, was the consequence, not the first evidence, of the disturbance of the energy standard backing of a monetary unit. It was that kind of disturbances of biogenous energy backing standard in the XIV century’s Spain that led to triple growth in gold equivalent (i.e. gold went three times as much more expensive).
Electric power consumption is not a reaction of the society to some disturbances in the exchange of goods of in paper money circulation. It is a component of production or consumer exchange of goods as such. The society does not have auctions for electric power consumption: there are electricity meters, and the tariffs are set in advance. Moreover, the capacities of power stations and the systems of power supply redistribution through the regions as well as different tariffs (reduced and increased tariffs, which may depend on time of the day and aggregate electric power consumption for a particular term) have been satisfying the needs of the customers (including ‘peak’ ones) for the past decades in a reliable way as soon as they have been connected to the main electricity supply grid. Emergency interruptions of power supply of production facilities, inhabited localities or regions due to overloads have been extremely rare[8]. Thereof, the electricity consumption tariffs are basically connected with the money circulation parameters the same way the other nominal prices are.
