In discussions on the economic question, I often draw attention to the widespread misunderstanding of the essence of modern economy. It lies in the fact that very, very many, we can say that the majority, do not at all perceive the economy of the country or the world as a whole as a single, interconnected system. Hence the misunderstanding of both the Soviet economy and our communist initiatives is growing.

Of course, this misunderstanding was not without reason. Bourgeois economic theories, especially economics, now taught almost everywhere, have made a huge contribution to the formation of this misunderstanding. The essence of economics is that, from the point of view of its adherents, there is no single economy, but only a crowd of disparate individuals selling and buying, “efficiently” dividing resources and striving to maximize personal gain. This whole theory stands on a granite pedestal of the concept that supposedly a person has some unchanging nature, which determines all his economic aspirations. However, despite the pathos of this theory, G.V. Plekhanov reduced this pedestal to crumbs a hundred years ago in his excellent work On the Development of the Monistic View of History. In it, he proved, using the example of French materialism and utopian socialists, that the theory of the immutable nature of man is internally contradictory and cannot be accepted. If we say that the history of mankind is explained by the nature of man, then how do we know what the nature of man is? Only from history, from those events, from those public institutions that reflect human nature - noted G.V. Plekhanov. There is a tautology, a definition through the defined.

And in general, if the immutable nature of man really existed, then there would be no historical development, since in this case, a person, from the moment of his birth, would have arisen immediately with all the knowledge, skills and social institutions corresponding to this very immutable nature. This, as we well know, is not so. With regard to the neoliberal interpretation, it can be said that if a person were indeed by nature Homo economicus with the desire to maximize personal gain, then a perfect equilibrium market would immediately arise, with optimal satisfaction of needs and distribution of resources. It is obvious from practice that there is nothing like this in reality.

If Plekhanov is not enough for someone, then this liberal theory was refuted by such a hardened bourgeois as George Soros (in addition to trading in shares and currency, he also dealt with philosophy), who in practice proved that it is not worth a damn. He proved that there is no completeness of knowledge among market participants, that demand and supply curves cannot be considered data, and that the expectations, calculations and forecasts of market participants have the strongest effect on the situation in the market and give rise to trends that are far from equilibrium (this was proved by him in practice and formulated in the form of the theory of reflexivity). In other words, he proved that no immutable human nature in operations on the stock market, as well as static equilibrium, is not even close.

But Soros was not eager to bring down the whole of liberal economic theory, therefore he criticized only one aspect of it. We will go further and see more interesting moments. Another postulate of liberalism is that comparatively homogeneous and easily divisible products circulating on the market are comparable with each other through prices. Actually, the classics of economic theory constantly operate with simple products: a bushel of grain, a frock coat, a pound of iron, coal or gold. In fact, the products are extremely heterogeneous, divisible with difficulty and even more difficult to compare with each other. For example, coal cannot be considered a homogeneous product, if only because there are 18 main grades of coal, which are very different in properties, and coal in its quality is different even for one deposit. Not all grades of coal are interchangeable, for example, anthracite is not suitable for smelting cast iron and steel, and coking coal can burn through the grate of the furnace. There are hundreds of grades and grades of steel, thousands of types of chemical products, and so on and so forth. The products produced by mankind are extremely diverse.

It already follows from this that perfect competition between coal producers, for example, is impossible. The anthracite miner will not be able to sell it to the metallurgical plant, and in the market for furnace heating fuel, high-quality hard coal steadily displaces rough and lean hard coal, even if they are much cheaper (although from the point of view of liberal theory, whoever offers his product cheaper will win in competition). A simple idea follows from this - each product has its own purpose, its own range of applicability, and this circumstance already dispels perfect competition like a mirage. With all other types of products, whether agricultural or industrial, the picture is the same.

Further, each type of product requires: a) a certain production technology, b) certain means of production, c) a certain place of production, d) a labor force with a certain qualification. If the first two points seem to be more or less clear, then the rest are worth explaining. The distribution of minerals in the earth's crust is uneven, and therefore there are areas where there is a lot of coal and iron ore, and there are areas where there is neither one nor the other. Soviet academician A.E. Fersman developed special theory about geochemical knots, and before him intuitively understood the classics of economic theory, starting with Adam Smith. Each piece of land has its own set of minerals, and in addition to it, its own set of natural and climatic factors that determine the growth of certain plants and determine all agricultural production. In order to extract, grow and produce, we need people who know how to do it. It is the difference in natural conditions and the variety of products led to the emergence and enormous development of specialization in the economy. Marx was right when he said that specialization increases the efficiency of production and labor productivity, but without taking into account natural and climatic factors and the diversity of products, the concept of specialization will be clearly incomplete. Specialization began precisely with diversity, and judging by the archaeological data, it began as early as the Neolithic (whole “factories” for the production of flint tools were found near flint veins, which then diverged in exchange, the same can be said about copper and tin, iron, salt) .

Specialization also leads to the fact that a worker, having mastered one profession well, almost cannot retrain for another profession. Of course, there are related specialties, but, for example, a blast-furnace metallurgist cannot retrain as a textile worker. Not to mention the age characteristics of work and the difference in qualifications and education. Thus, the quality of the labor force turns out to be heterogeneous and often incomparable.

Based on all this, we can say that perfect competition is a pure myth, a naked abstraction that has nothing to do with reality. In reality, more or less isolated from each other spheres of the economy have developed and continue to develop, associated with the implementation of a particular technology, with the processing of a particular type of raw material, with the production of a certain range of products. These areas are traditionally called industries. They are based on certain technologies, a set of equipment, a set of workers, on certain types of raw materials that have geographical localization. Nothing can be produced unless these conditions are met. It follows from this that the idea of ​​the economy as disparate households trading among themselves is completely and completely wrong. Rather, we are talking about some rather large communities of people united in industrial communities on an industrial basis, which may include hundreds of thousands and millions of people.

It also follows from this that the market, as liberal economists imagine it, also does not exist. First, each such production community produces products mainly not for itself, but for the rest of the production communities. It happens, of course, that a worker in an industry can act as a consumer of his own products, as was the case in the Ford factories when the worker bought his own car. A miner can buy coal for heating, a metallurgist can buy metal for his own needs, a farmer can buy grain for his personal household. But if we compare the gross output of the industry with similar consumption, we see that it is negligible. Let's say that the same miners spend for their needs thousandths of a percent of the gross volume of their production. That is, the industry's products are almost entirely used for consumption in other industries. Through this mutual consumption of products, links are formed between industries that are very stable and amenable to fairly accurate calculation. Secondly, consumption, which determines demand, in each industry is not at all random, but is determined by many factors related to the needs of production itself and the personal needs of workers and their families. From good statistics, it is not so difficult to find out how much and what exactly this or that industry consumes. The heterogeneity of products noted above and their irreducibility in quality to one indicator imposes a rigid framework on this demand. Thirdly, the supply of products depends on the productive capacity of the industry and the nature of production in it, which can also be easily learned from good statistics. An industry in a unit of time cannot put on the market more than what it is physically capable of producing. Fourthly, the sectoral nature of production leads to the fact that the number of market participants is always quite limited, both on the part of sellers and consumers, and this limitation significantly affects prices, that is, the quantitative and qualitative relations of exchanged products.

Now we can appreciate the significance of the institution of property, which is characteristic of the capitalist economy. Property is always formed by the forcible seizure, whether of territory, of sources of raw materials, of means of production, when a certain person or group of people declares something to be at their exclusive disposal. Property, as was said once, has two sides: if someone has something in property, then this means that everyone else does not have it. If someone has seized the sources of raw materials, say, for steelmaking, then all metallurgists are completely dependent on him, because, for the reasons described above, the workers cannot provide all their needs, if only because they do not know how to perform all the work necessary for self-sufficiency, not have the means of production and raw materials for this. The seizure of territory is the easiest way to establish such control over all economic activity, since raw materials, as we have already seen, have a geographical localization. In this case, for the sake of their own survival, the workers must go to the new owner and agree to all his conditions. The owner, on the other hand, turns into a complete controller of the production process and the owner of all manufactured products, which he can dispose of at his own discretion.

Thus, the market turns de facto into a two-story public structure. On the top floor are the owners, exchanging products among themselves, and on the lower floor - workers and members of their families. Free exchange relations exist only on the upper floor, while on the lower floor a distribution system is formed, the owner distributes among his subordinate workers a part of the products received through this exchange. The form of money (in the form of payment of wages and subsequent purchases of articles of personal consumption by the workers) is only the form of this distribution, which for many obscures the real essence of the process. For workers, there is no free exchange of labor for products in the form of a certain money equivalent, as is often claimed, if only because they have no way to provide for their needs outside this process, and hunger and want force the worker to go to work.

The fact that a worker receives wages from one capitalist, but buys the products he needs from other capitalists, does not mean that there is any kind of free exchange on this lower level of the market either. Firstly, because a single capitalist can concentrate in his hands the sale of all necessary goods for his subordinate workers (typical examples are factory shops of the 19th and early 20th centuries, modern corporate canteens, shops, and the like). Secondly, for more than a hundred years there has been an association of capitalists, co-ownership of assets, financial and industrial groups, so that different branches of the economy belong, in fact, to the same people. Current research shows a colossal concentration of ownership in the hands of a very small group of companies, that is, a small circle of capitalists owns, in fact, the whole world. Taking this factor into account, it is clear that wages and the purchase of products for them are capitalist distribution.

It is the ownership and control of material production gives the capitalists their colossal power over the people. Money, in a general sense, acts only as a means of exchanging material products, and that is why no changes in the financial system, no “Gesel money” are able to change this situation.

So, on closer examination, it turned out that the liberal theory is a myth. There is no free market, free exchange, equilibrium of supply and demand, the immutable nature of man, but there is something else: a production system that produces diverse and different-quality products, united by technological, and in recent years fifty and energy ties, as well as united by a community of capitalists who carry out, in essence, the distribution of manufactured products between industries and among those who are not owners.

Adam Smith was born in 1723 in Scotland in the family of a customs official. In 1751 he was appointed professor of logic at Glazkov University, and at the end of the year he moved to the department of moral philosophy. A friendship with the economist David Hume led him to study economics.

In 1764, he left the chair and accepted an offer to accompany the young lord, stepson of the Duke of Buccleuch, during a trip abroad. The journey lasted over 2 years. Smith traveled to Toulouse, Geneva, Paris, met with Quesnay and Turgot.

On his return to Scotland, he set about writing a book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which was published in 1776.

Smith considered the economic development of society and the improvement of its well-being to be the subject of study of economic science. The source of wealth is the sphere of production.

The basic principles from which Smith proceeded were formed in close connection with the doctrine of "natural order" created by the physiocrats. However, if the latter put the "natural order" depending on the forces of nature, then Smith believed that it was determined by human nature and corresponded to it. A person is an egoist, he pursues only personal goals. The personal interest of one individual is limited only by the interests of others. Society consists of many individuals, and the interests of society are made up of the interests of its members. Therefore, the analysis of the public interest must be based on an analysis of the nature and interests of the individual.

People need each other as selfish, they provide mutual services, so the only form that best achieves mutual service is exchange.

action "economic man", whose only motive is the pursuit of wealth, Smith tried to explain all economic processes.

Central to his teaching is concept of economic liberalism: market laws can best affect the economy when private interest is higher than public interest, i.e. when the interests of society as a whole are considered as the sum of the interests of its constituent persons.

The state must maintain the regime of natural freedom: protect the rule of law, free competition and private property. It should also perform such functions as the organization of public education, public works, communication systems, transport and public utilities.

Smith wrote, "Money is the great wheel of circulation." The income of workers, in his opinion, is directly dependent on the level national wealth countries. He denied the regularity of the decrease in wages to the level of the subsistence minimum.

The views of the scientist on the division of labor are widely known. Smith's central idea is that the source of wealth is labor. He puts the wealth of society in dependence on 2 factors: the share of the population employed in industrial labor; labor productivity.

At the same time, Smith noticed that the second factor has greater value. In his opinion, specialization increases labor productivity. He revealed the universal nature of the division of labor from simple operations in the enterprise to industries and social classes. Since the division of labor causes a reduction in production costs, it opens up scope for the use of machines, since only simple operations could be mechanized.

By focusing his attention on exchange value, Smith finds the yardstick in the labor costs of producing commodities. This is at the core of the exchange. Labor is the source of value. Under natural price he understood the monetary expression of exchange value and believed that in a long trend, actual market prices tend to it as to a certain center of fluctuations. When balancing demand and supply in conditions of free competition, market prices coincide with natural ones.

Capital is characterized by Smith as one of two parts of the stock from which income is expected, and the other part is that which goes to consumption. He introduced the division of capital into fixed and circulating.

Smith believed that the capitalist economy can be in 3 states: growth, decline and stagnation. He developed 2 interconnected schemes of simple and extended reproduction. In the scheme of simple reproduction, there is a movement from the social reserve to the gross product (income) and the compensation fund. In the expanded reproduction scheme, savings and accumulation funds are added. Expanded reproduction creates the dynamics of the country's wealth, depends on the growth of capital accumulation and on more efficient use. Smith discovered the phenomenon of technological progress as a factor of expanded reproduction.

The subject of study of economic theory. What does microeconomics study?

economic science- the science of how people and society choose how to use scarce resources in order to produce a variety of goods and services and meet the needs of different individuals and groups in society.
We can say: the contradiction of unlimited needs and limited resources, micro- and macroeconomics, economic policy, the main issues of the economy.

Microeconomics is an integral part of economic theory that studies the economic relationships between people and determines the general patterns of their economic activity.

Microeconomics is the science of decision making that studies the behavior of individual economic actors. Its main problems are:

o prices and volumes of production and consumption of specific goods;

o the state of individual markets;

o distribution of resources between alternative targets.

Microeconomics studies relative prices, i.e., the ratio of prices of individual goods, while macroeconomics studies the absolute level of prices.

The direct subject of microeconomics are: economic relations associated with the efficient use of limited resources; decision-making by individual subjects of the economy in the conditions of economic choice.

the main task economic actors of microeconomics is to make economic choices based on limited resources. In any society, limited resources force choices to be made in order to address the following questions:

What to produce and in what volume;

How to produce selected types of goods;

who gets what is produced;

What amount of resources to use for current consumption and what - for the future.

Microeconomics provides insight into the movement of individual prices and deals with a complex system of relationships called the market mechanism. OVA considers the problems of costs, results, utility, cost and price in the form in which they are formed in the direct process of production, in acts of exchange in the market.

Microanalysis has undergone a certain modification, in particular, the object of microeconomics has expanded.

Leading modern economic schools

NEOCLASSICAL SYNTHESIS. Merging two approaches.

The neoclassical synthesis represents a further development and, at the same time, a kind of "reconciliation" of approaches to the analysis of economic processes. If, for example, Keynes was quite critical of the ability of prices to respond flexibly to changes in market conditions, then the representatives of the neoclassical synthesis sought to "rehabilitate" prices, arguing that they contribute to the optimal distribution and the most complete use of resources. Considering the problem of employment, supporters of a "mixed" system express their disagreement with the "underemployment" put forward by Keynes.At the same time, the views of Keynes's opponents are being corrected.

The main idea of ​​"synthesis" is to develop a more general economic theory that reflects changes in the economic mechanism, the results of later research and everything positive that is contained in the works of predecessors.

Features of neoclassical synthesis:

1) Neoclassical synthesis is characterized by the expansion and deepening of research topics. This is not about a radical revision, but about the development of a generally accepted theory, the creation of systems that unite and harmonize different points of view;

2) Extensive use of mathematics as a tool䤠 economic analysis;

3) Proponents of the neoclassical synthesis clarified old and developed new problems in accordance with the changes taking place in the industrial basis and mechanism of the market economy. Discussing with opponents, they sought to synthesize traditional views with new ideas and approaches.

MODERN KEYNSIANS.

Proponents of modern Keynesianism proceed from the assumption that there are stable causes in the capitalist economy that can cause painful deviations from the stability of growth and the full use of resources, and therefore government intervention is needed to correct them.

Modern Keynesianism can hardly be called a macroeconomic theory of effective demand. Emphasis is shifted to other areas of analysis, related primarily to the functioning of capital markets, goods and labor. And here the main attention is paid to the analysis of problems generated by the active influence of the financial sector on the course of real production.

The next most important problem, which modern Keynesianism is working on, is the development of the theory of pricing as new foundation macroeconomics. The purpose of this theory is to show the peculiarities of pricing in the real conditions of modern capitalism, when the predominance of large firms capable of regulating prices and production volumes within certain limits is combined with the dominance of strong trade unions and collective wage agreements, when the state interferes in pricing processes, that is, under conditions the existence of regulated markets for goods and labor. In this new situation (imperfect competition), prices do not change so quickly and elastically as to bring the new demand and supply into equilibrium in a sufficiently short time (“clear the market”). As a result, firms react to changes in the situation on the markets with fluctuations in production volumes, the result of which is long-term deviations from the state of equilibrium with incomplete use of production capacities and labor.

The crisis of Keynesianism in recent decades has caused a revival of the neoclassical direction, but it also contributed to the emergence of new trends in Keynesianism itself. Of course, the differences between these two leading areas of modern economic science cannot be absolute. They mainly concern the initial ideas about the mechanisms of the economy's adaptation to non-equilibrium situations or "imperfections" of the market, about the speed of this adaptation and about who, in the final analysis, is able to correct things faster, more efficiently and cheaper - the market or the state.

LIBERAL DIRECTION IN ECONOMIC THEORY.

The emergence of liberalism as a current of Western economic thought dates back to the 18th century. It is based on the political philosophy of liberalism, whose creed - the famous principle of "laisser faire" ("do not interfere with action") - can be revealed how to allow people to do what they want, to give them the right to be themselves in economic activity and religion, culture, Everyday life and thoughts.

Neoliberalism is a direction in economic science and practice of economic activity, which is based on the principle of self-regulation of the economy, free from excessive regulation.

Modern representatives of economic liberalism follow two, to a certain extent traditional, positions: firstly, they proceed from the fact that the market (as the most efficient form of management) creates the best conditions for economic growth, and, secondly, they defend the priority of freedom. participants in economic activity. The state must provide conditions for competition and exercise control where these conditions are absent. In practice (and neo-liberals are forced to admit it in most cases), the state now intervenes in economic life on a large scale and in various forms.

In fact, under the name of neoliberals, there are not one, but several schools. It is customary to refer to neoliberalism the Chicago (M. Friedman), London (F. Hayek), Freiburg (W. Eucken, L. Erhard) schools.

Modern liberals are united by a common methodology, and not by conceptual provisions. Some of them adhere to the right (opponents of the state, preachers of absolute freedom), others - to the left (a more flexible and sober approach to the participation of the state in economic activity) views. Proponents of neoliberalism usually criticize the Keynesian methods of economic regulation. In the United States and in some other Western countries, contemporary neo-liberal politics is based on a number of economic approaches that have received the most recognition. This is monetarism, which assumes that the capitalist economy has internal regulators and management should rely primarily on monetary instruments; economic theory suggestions, giving importance economic incentives; rational expectations theory: the availability of information makes it possible to foresee the consequences of economic decisions.

In general, the strengthening of the ideas of liberalism was greatly facilitated by the success of economic policy based on the principles of economic freedom, which was carried out at different times by the governments of the leading Western countries. The experience of Germany, Great Britain and the USA can serve as the most indicative in this respect. The International Monetary Fund also largely builds its activities based on the ideas of liberalism, in particular, monetarism.

INSTITUTIONALISM.

course of economic thought, institutionalism is relatively young: its emergence and design as a scientific school dates back to the 19th century. First period development of institutionalism was called the so-called old negative school . Second phase lasted from the 40s to the 60s of the twentieth century; since the beginning of the 70s, a new one has been opened - and so far final stage in the development of institutionalism.

There are three main directions in institutionalism, which have been identified in late XIX century: institutionalism socio-psychological, socio-legal and empirical (conjuncture-statistical). All of them, despite the common fundamental provisions, differ significantly from each other.

Trying to define the essence of "institutionalism" we find features related to the field of methodology:

1) dissatisfaction with the high level of abstraction inherent in neoclassicism, and in particular the statistical nature of the orthodox price theory;

2) the desire to integrate economic theory with other social sciences, or "belief in the advantage of an interdisciplinary approach";

3) dissatisfaction with the insufficient empiricism of classical and neoclassical theories, a call for detailed quantitative research.

Added to this is the requirement to strengthen “public control over business”, that is, a benevolent attitude towards state intervention in the economy.

The concept of "institutionalism" includes two aspects, these are customs, traditions, norms of behavior accepted in society - "institutions". Secondly, it is the consolidation of norms and customs in the form of laws, organizations, institutions, that is, “institutions”. Institutions are the forms and boundaries of human activity. They represent political organizations, forms of business, systems of credit institutions. These are tax and financial legislation, the organization of social security associated with economic practices. The institutional approach means an analysis not only of economic categories and processes in their pure form, but also of institutions and external economic factors.

Institutionalists believe that neoclassical concepts are sketchy and out of touch with reality. After all, prices are not actually determined by free competition (it has not existed for a long time), but are fixed by those in whose hands the economic power is, that is, by the state.

Political economy, according to institutionalists, is not a science about the functioning, but about the development of society. It must move away from traditional approaches. It is important not only to regulate economic processes, but to change the picture economic development. Part economic doctrine should include the theory of public administration. Science should not be limited to the study of functional dependencies, and state regulation is reduced only to maintaining the conditions of competition. This is too narrow an approach. In the foreground should be the problems of the evolution of economic systems, revealing the mechanism of the ongoing changes.

Introduction

In many developed countries of Europe and in the USA throughout the 19th century. right up to the replacement of classical political economy by marginalism, the teachings of A. Smith were fundamental for the further development of the ideas and conceptual provisions of the "classical school" and mainly those that absolutized the policy of economic liberalism, the elements of the market mechanism of management. In this sense, J.B. Say.

One of the first theoretical merits of Zh.B. Say in the field of economic science is predominantly of national importance. As you know, in France in the middle of the XVIII century. physiocratic economic theories arose and gained wide popularity, which continued to dominate the economic thought of the country, even despite the appearance in 1802 of French translation"The Wealth of Nations" by A. Smith. It was Zh.B. Say thanks to one of his early but significant works entitled "A Treatise of Political Economy, or a simple exposition of the manner in which wealth is formed, distributed and consumed" (1803).

Liberal economic theory in France. Theory of J.B. Say on the three factors of production. "Say's Law"

The revolution in France cleared the ground for the free development of capitalist relations. There are numerous commercial and industrial enterprises, flourishing speculation, commercial excitement, the pursuit of profit. The peasants freed from feudal dependence and the artisans freed from the narrow limits of guild regulation depended on all the chances of free competition. As they go bankrupt, they join the ranks of the growing class of wage-workers.

The state system of France of this period was monarchical; the nobility and a very narrow circle of big capitalists enjoyed political rights. Nevertheless, even the most reactionary governments of France were unable to abolish the main gains of the revolution, which abolished estate privileges, solved the agrarian question in a bourgeois spirit and radically rebuilt the legal system. It is significant that the Civil Code of 1804 remained in force under the most reactionary French governments.

Under these conditions, the ideologists of the French bourgeoisie are focusing on justifying the "individual rights and freedoms" necessary for the development of capitalism. The danger to freedom is no longer seen only in the possible attempts to attack feudal reaction, but also in the democratic theories of the revolutionary period.

The most significant ideologue of liberalism in France was Benjamin Constant (1767-1830). Peru Constanta owns a number of works on political and historical-religious topics. Konstan focuses on the justification of personal freedom, understood as freedom of conscience, speech, freedom of entrepreneurship, and private initiative.

He distinguishes between political freedom and personal freedom.

The ancient peoples knew only political freedom, which comes down to the right to participate in the exercise of political power (the adoption of laws, participation in justice, in the choice officials solving issues of war and peace, etc.). Exercising the right to participate in the exercise of collective sovereignty, the citizens of the ancient republics (with the exception of Athens) were at the same time subject to state regulation and control in private life. They were prescribed obligatory religion, customs; the state intervened in property relations, regulated crafts, and so on.

New peoples, Constant believed, understand freedom differently. The right to participate in political power is less valued because states have become large and the vote of one citizen is no longer decisive. In addition, the abolition of slavery deprived the free of the leisure that enabled them to devote much time to political affairs. Finally, the warlike spirit of the ancient peoples was replaced by a commercial spirit; modern peoples are busy with industry, trade, labor, and therefore they not only do not have time to deal with management issues, but also react very painfully to any state interference in their personal affairs.

Hence, Constant concluded, the freedom of new peoples is personal, civil freedom, consisting in a certain independence of individuals from state power.

Especially Constant pays much attention to the justification of religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and industrial freedom.

Defending free competition as "the most reliable means of improving all industries", Konstan strongly speaks out against the "mania of regulation". The state, in his opinion, should not interfere in industrial activity, because it conducts commercial affairs "worse and more expensive than we ourselves." Konstan also objects to the legislative regulation of the wages of workers, calling such regulation an outrageous violence, useless, moreover, because competition brings down the prices of labor to the lowest level: "What is the use of regulations when the nature of things will deprive the law of action and force?"

In a society where wage workers did not yet have their own organizations capable of fighting industrialists for any tolerable working conditions and wages, such a defense of industrial freedom, which Constant considered one of the main freedoms, was a frank justification of the commercial spirit, in fact an apology for capitalism developing in France. But Konstan also defended other freedoms - opinions, conscience, the press, meetings, petitions, organizations, movements, etc. "For forty years," he wrote at the end of his life, "I defended the same principle - freedom in everything: in religion, philosophy, literature, industry, politics..."

Constant is worried not only about the possibility of encroachment on industrial and other freedoms by the monarchical state; he sees no less danger to freedom in the revolutionary theories of popular sovereignty. "By freedom," Constant wrote, "I mean the triumph of the individual over the government, which wants to rule through violence, and over the masses, who claim from the majority the right to subjugate the minority."

Constant criticizes the theories of Rousseau and other supporters of popular sovereignty, who, following the ancients, identified freedom with power. However, the unlimited power of the people is dangerous for individual freedom; According to Constant, during the period of the Jacobin dictatorship and terror, it became clear that unlimited popular sovereignty is no less dangerous than the sovereignty of an absolute monarch. “If sovereignty is not limited,” Constant argued, “there is no way to create security for individuals ... The sovereignty of the people is not unlimited, it is limited by the limits that justice and the rights of the individual set for it.”

Based on this, Konstan poses the question of the form of government in a new way. He condemns any form of state where there is an "excessive degree of power" and there are no guarantees of individual freedom. Such guarantees, Constant wrote, are public opinion, as well as the separation and balance of powers.

Constant recognized that the existence of an elected institution (representation) is necessary. Accordingly, political freedom must be exercised in the state in the sense that citizens take part in elections and a representative institution is included in the system supreme bodies authorities. However, Constant persistently repeated, "political freedom is only a guarantee of individual freedom." It follows that the representative institution is only an organ of expression public opinion bound and limited in its activities by the competence of other state bodies.

The separation and balance of powers Constant depicts as follows. In a constitutional monarchy, there must be a "neutral power" in the person of the head of state. Constant disagrees with Montesquieu, who considered the monarch only the head of the executive branch. The monarch takes part in all authorities, prevents conflicts between them, ensures their coordinated activities. He has the right to veto, dissolve the elective chamber, he appoints members of the hereditary chamber of peers, and exercises the right to pardon. The king, Constant wrote, "as if hovering over human disturbances, forming a certain sphere of greatness and impartiality", he has no interests "except for the interests of protecting order and freedom." Executive power is exercised by ministers responsible to Parliament.

Constant called the hereditary chamber of peers, or "permanent representative power," a special power. Constant's views on this chamber were changing. During the Hundred Days period, he persistently urged Napoleon to establish a chamber of peers as a "barrier" to the power of the monarch and "an intermediary body that keeps the people in order." Soon, however, Constant himself becomes disillusioned with this institution, which existed under the Bourbons. His argumentation is very characteristic: the development of industry and trade increases the importance of industrial and movable property; under these conditions, the hereditary chamber, representing only landed property, "contains something unnatural."

The Legislative Chamber, elected by Constant, calls "the power of public opinion." He pays great attention to the principles of the formation of this chamber, persistently upholding a high property qualification.

Constant's arguments are as follows: only rich people have the education and upbringing necessary to realize the public interest. "Property alone ensures leisure; only property makes a man capable of enjoying political rights." Only the owners "are imbued with a love for order, justice" and for the preservation of the existing. "On the contrary, the poor, reasoned Constant, "do not have more intelligence than children, and no more than foreigners, are interested in the national welfare. "If they are given political rights, added Constant, they will try to use this to encroach on property.That is why political rights are permissible only for those who have an income that makes it possible to exist for a year without working for hire.Constan also objected to the payment of remuneration to deputies.

Finally, Konstan calls the judiciary an independent power.

He also speaks in favor of expanding the rights of local self-government, not considering "municipal power" as subordinate to the executive branch, but interpreting it as a special power.

The evolution of liberalism in the 20th century. led to the forced recognition of the positive functions of the state, aimed at organizing universal education, health care, material support and other social functions; on this basis, neoliberalism was formed as one of the currents of bourgeois state studies of the 20th century.

The formation of political economy as a science is associated with the name of A. Smith, who was the first to study the laws governing the production and distribution of material goods. But from the teachings of A. Smith, the majority of economic schools also grow, considering him their founder, despite the fundamental differences between them. This is explained by the fact that Smith peacefully coexists with different approaches in determining the cost, wages, profits and a number of other issues, and each direction takes those ideas of Smith that correspond to their worldview.

Zh.B. considered himself a follower of A. Smith. Say, who entered the history of economic thought as the author of the theory of three factors of production and the law, which light hand J. Keynes was called "Say's Law".

Jean Baptiste Say (1767-1832) - a representative of French economic thought and a supporter of the economic ideas of A. Smith. Like Smith, he was a consistent defender of the principles of economic liberalism, demanded a "cheap state" and economic functions the latter to a minimum.

Say published his views in the work "Treatise of Political Economy, or a simple statement of the way in which wealth is formed, distributed and consumed", which was published in 1803, and subsequently went through four more editions.

In the life of Zh.B. Sei was in different years and civil servants, and entrepreneurs, and academic economists. And it must be said that his ideas found understanding among the French government during the Restoration period, when a weak state reduced its influence on the economy.

Since 1816 J.B. Say has been teaching, popularizing classical political economy, and since 1830 he has been in charge of his own department of political economy at the College de France, on the basis of which an entire school of Say's followers arose. During the Restoration, Jean-Baptiste Say published two significant works Catechism of Political Economy (1817) and Full course practical political economy (1829).

Sharing the worldview of A. Smith, Say completely departed from those elements of the labor theory of value that are so clearly heard by A. Smith.

In Say's interpretation, value was not determined by labor costs, but was made dependent on a number of factors: the utility of the product, the cost of its production, supply and demand. Cost (in Say's theory - value) is always in direct proportion to the quantity asked, and inversely to the quantity offered, and thus the price is the result of the mutual influence of supply and demand. Under the influence of sellers' competition, prices are reduced to the level of production costs, and production costs are made up of payment for productive services, i.e. wages, profits and rents.

Meanwhile, A. Smith has already shown that exchange value cannot be directly related to utility, since the most useful items often have the lowest value, while such vital items as air and water do not have it at all. It is no coincidence that Say disagrees with the opinion of the "father of political economy" on the question of productive and unproductive labor. He defines production as a human activity aimed at creating utility, where utility can be embodied in tangible and intangible forms. Therefore, even state services, according to Say, are also the production of utility, and the labor used to create them should rightly be called productive.

Say made a special emphasis on the usefulness of the goods, since, in his opinion, it is it that is created in the production process, and it is this that "gives" value to objects.

Say was the first to clearly express the idea of ​​the equal participation of production factors (labor, capital and land) in the creation of the value of the product. And here, on the side of Say, there was evidence itself, since for any production, a combination of natural resources, means of production and labor power is necessary. Indeed, the national income or gross national product can be regarded as the mass of use-values, utilities produced per year (in Say's terms). The change in income and product, expressed in constant prices, reflects the increase in the physical volume of production, i.e. increase in wealth and prosperity. And with such an interpretation, the question of the share of the national income (or product) falling on the share of each of the factors involved in production, and of the share of the increase in these quantities given by the increase in each of these factors, is quite justified. There is no doubt that the study of these functional dependencies is important for improving the efficiency National economy.

However, Say could not explain the mechanism for determining the proportion of the created product that falls on each factor of production. The first such attempt was made at the end of the nineteenth century by the American economist J. Clark.

Say's interpretation of profit is interesting. Already in Say's time it was known that profit is divided into loan interest, which is appropriated by the capitalist as the owner of capital, and entrepreneurial income, appropriated by the capitalist as the head of the enterprise. For Say, entrepreneurial income is not just a kind of wages that a hired manager could receive, but a remuneration for a particularly important social function - the rational combination of all factors of production.

Already at the beginning of the nineteenth century, in connection with the industrial revolution, the question of the negative impact on the position of workers of the introduction of new equipment was being discussed, since it became obvious that the replacement of labor by machines increased unemployment. Say also laid the foundations of the "compensation theory" in his work, arguing that machines only at first displace workers, and subsequently cause an increase in employment and even bring them the greatest benefit, cheapening the production of consumer goods.

But Say's idea is best known, which entered the history of economic thought as "Say's Law". The essence of this law is that general crises of overproduction in a market economy are impossible. And the argument is as follows: the value of the goods created is the total income, which, in turn, is used to buy goods of the corresponding value. In other words, aggregate demand will always be equal to aggregate supply, and the disproportions between supply and demand can only be partial (concerning one or more goods) and temporary, and are due to the fact that the distribution of social labor by type of production is not optimal: something is produced in excess, something is in short supply. Any overproduction is limited, since at the other extreme there must always be a shortage.

By the way, even in the twentieth century, representatives of the neoclassical trend actually take positions that, by and large, go back to Say, believing that through the flexibility of prices, wages, and other elements, the economy can automatically avoid serious crises.

A feature of "Say's law" is that it is understood that goods are produced directly for the satisfaction of people's needs and are exchanged with a completely passive role of money in this exchange.

This view goes back to A. Smith and is typical for all representatives of the classical and neoclassical trends, where money is seen as a superstructure based on a system of real market relations. No one holds money as such, and no one seeks to possess it. If we accept the assumption of the passive role of money in exchange, "Say's law" will be absolutely correct - it is impossible to imagine a general crisis of overproduction in a barter-type economy, where there cannot be such a phenomenon as an excess of supply over demand for all goods.

But in a money economy, a general oversupply of goods is theoretically possible, and this would mean an oversupply of goods in relation to money demand.

This situation arises when money is not only a medium of circulation, but also a means of storing value, which is the case in a real money economy.

Then, due to various motives (including precautionary motives and speculative motives), people prefer to save part of their income, and part of the created product (the cost of which, according to Smith's dogma, consists of the sum of income: wages, profits and rents) does not find its customers.

Very soon, a discussion unfolded around "Say's law", which has not been fully completed to date, being the subject of discussion between representatives of the neoclassical and Keynesian trends.

It should be noted that the theory of three factors of production plus Say's law of markets lead to the conclusion that society is harmonious under the capitalist mode of production. Each class of society is rewarded for the factor of production it has invested, and Say's law guarantees a fair distribution of income and the absence of exploitation.

Moreover, since production is possible only if all factors are present, each of the classes is interested in the well-being of the others.

Economic liberalism began XX century.

neoliberalism. The theory of social equilibrium of the economy.

Crisis of Keynesianism. non-conservative concepts.

Neoclassical synthesis .

Economic liberalism is a concept that rejects the centralized state regulation of the economy. Its ancestor was A. Smith, his principle: "let people do what they want." Liberalism dominated science in the 19th - early 20th centuries, but in the 1930s - 1940s. the ideas of state regulation have become virtually universally accepted. This was facilitated by the global economic crisis of 1929-1933. and the successes of industrialization in the USSR.

However, the ideas of liberalism continued to exist. They were developed in the works Friedrich von Hayek (1899 - 1992) and Ludwig von Mises (1881 - 1973) .

Von Hayek Von Mises

Major writings Friedrich von Hayek: The Constitution of Freedom, The Road to Slavery . The main principle is priority of freedom . Freedom meant the absence of any state interference. The fewer functions the state has, the better.

1.Concept spontaneous order – the existing order has developed not as a result of someone's conscious intention, but spontaneously, spontaneously and is maintained. “We can understand the connection between phenomena, but not manage them. Economics is only able to describe events, outline development trends..

An entrepreneur is not interested in theory. He wants to know how much income he can get in a short period of time.

2. The problem of coordinating the activities of entrepreneurs - information problem . Information gives an advantage to those who own it.

The market mechanism dissemination mechanism . The market generates and provides information. Information comes through the mechanism of market prices. Any price control distorts information .

Having information is an advantage. Hayek identifies two conditions for market efficiency:

Sufficiency and transparency of information;

The speed of its distribution;

As a result, there is constantly balance of prices and supply. Any attempt to regulate prices distorts information. The demand for products is unknown to manufacturers and suppliers - production becomes inefficient.

The state should refrain from interfering in economic activity, as the mechanism of information transfer is violated . It is necessary to give up control over monetary policy. The national currency is not needed.

Inequality in society is natural and fair, as it develops in a competitive struggle. There is a kind of "selection" - the share of income of each is determined.

Ludwig von Mises in his work "Socialism" opposed any form of state intervention in the economy - from Soviet state socialism to Roosevelt's New Deal.

Centrally set prices make it impossible to establish economic equilibrium. If the price ceases to be a measure of the connection between supply and demand, it cannot serve as a compass showing the way to production.. The basis for comparing different investment options disappears.

A regulated economy is a field of arbitrariness for government officials. Even with absolute honesty and education, officials do not have a tool that makes it possible to judge where to run the economy.

Socialism is an imitating, imitating economy , copies the processes occurring spontaneously in the countries of the market economy. Without this, he is doomed. A planned economy can hold out for a relatively long time only by imitating what is being done outside it and inevitably lagging behind in doing so.. Socialism is possible only in a group of countries, its worldwide victory would mean its collapse.

Direction neoliberalism formed in Germany in the early 1930s. 20th century (so-called Freiburg School ). Its leader was Prof. Walter Eucken (1891 - 1950) , "Fundamentals of the national economy", "Order of the economy".

Walter Eucken Ludwig Erhard

There are only two types of economy - free market and centrally managed economy. All existing forms of economic systems are ultimately reduced to these two " pure forms ". In the first type of economy, no one has the right to dictate anything. In the second, all decisions are made at the top. In reality " pure forms" does not exist. Exist "real types" farms - combinations in various ratios of pure forms.

What determines the type of farm? Following the economists of the "historical school", Eucken sees the reasons in the national and regional characteristics of the country (traditions, customs, mores, religion). This is the choice of the people themselves. The more civilized the people, the more decentralized economy they choose.

Tasks of the state - to orient the people, to help in the choice. After that, the state should step aside and monitor compliance with the rules of the game. State - " football referee ". It sets the rules of the game and enforces them.

Oyken called howling concept "ordoliberalism" (from lat. order – order ).

After the fall of the fascist regime in Germany, Neoliberalism is experiencing a rebirth. It transforms into a concept social market economy .

Alfred Müller-Arman (1901 - 1978), Wilhelm Röpke (1899 - 1966) . Unlike the liberals of the Freiburg school not only allowed, but also considered necessary the active role of the state in the economy .

The state should take on a role to control the activities of monopolies . The state must ensure freedom of pricing and price competition. Some neoliberals even allowed nationalization of monopolies (Alexander Ryustov ).

The state is called upon to carry out some redistribution of income in favor of the poor through taxes and budget financing of social programs. Some theorists considered possible even the state regulation of competition (A. Ryustov ).

“The state is not a night watchman, but a football referee” (V. Ryopke ). It ensures that the players follow the rules of the game.

Conditions for macroeconomic development :

Private property as a precondition for competition;

Free competition;

The market without monopolists as a regulator of production through the mechanism of free pricing.

The main condition for macroeconomic development is monetary stability . Causes of economic crises in erroneous monetary policy.

Neo-liberals see inflation as the main threat to the economy . They oppose the Keynesian concept of regulating the economy through public investment. Ensuring the conditions for economic growth is not the task of the state. Its task is to create conditions for free competition, which itself will lead to economic growth.

In the 1970s neoliberalism has undergone some changes . Recognized expediency of state regulation of prices for certain socially important goods (food, electricity, transport services), not excluded public investment in those directions on which the development of the national economy depends.

The theory of the social market economy formed the basis of the economic policy pursued by the German authorities after the Second World War. One of the authors of this policy was Ludwig Erhard , Minister of Finance, and then Federal Chancellor of Germany. In his opinion, the social market economy is an alternative to both socialism and capitalism.

Until the mid 1970s. Western economies have developed successfully. Keynesian recommendations worked admirably. AT 1974-1975 - first post-war economic crisis . 1980 - 1982 - a new crisis , much larger. Moreover, a new phenomenon appeared - stagflation - inflation and stagnation. These crises gave birth to a new economic direction - neoconservatism.

Causes of crises - in the early 60s - ser. In the 1970s, a new stage of the scientific and technological revolution began - a revolution in technology, which resulted in computerization, robotization and miniaturization of production. The economy has taken on such a scale that it has become simply impossible to manage it from a single center. If previously large entrepreneurs outperformed small ones in all respects, now small enterprises have become more efficient. Numerous nomenclature of industrial products is updated by half in 2-3 years. It was necessary to shift the focus to autonomy enterprises, on self-regulation economy.

Neoconservatism is not a single school, but a collection of significantly different theories . Neoconservatives explain the crises of 1975 and 1980 excessive regulation of the economy. It found expression in too high taxes in order to implement social programs (Sweden - up to 75%, USA - 55%, England - 35%). The incentive to do business disappears, the shadow economy grows. Too broad social programs breed dependency . Man does not have the need to work. The fear of unemployment discourages the population - the economic system must be rigid.

The neoconservatives suggested:

Privatize the public sector of the economy.

Reduce taxes and social spending.

In other words reduce the overall level of regulation of the economy and revive free enterprise .

Supply theory .

Volume of production - is a function of the supply of capital and labor , and their offer primarily depends on state tax policy . The supply of capital is determined by the amount of savings. The lower the taxes, the higher the savings , the greater the supply of ship capital t the lower the interest rate. Increasing investment opportunities .

The supply of labor also depends on the severity of taxes. . Real wages are falling. Work becomes less attractive. It is possible to subsist on government unemployment benefits.

Social programs negatively affect the economy . Budget expenditures for these purposes inevitably lead to higher taxes.

The main task is to reduce and eliminate the budget deficit. Ways - the reduction of social programs and lower taxes on property and income.

Arthur Laffer - proposed a mathematical model of the dependence of tax revenues to the budget on tax rates on profits and wages.

First, as tax rates rise, budget revenues grow, then they begin to fall. There is some optimal tax rate . Its excess leads to curtailment of production and reduction of tax revenues to the budget.

In the spirit of the "supply theory" recommendation, the economic policy of the President of the United States was built Ronald Reagan (1981 - 1989) and Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1979 - 1990. Margaret Thatcher .

Milton Friedman

2. The main direction of modern neoconservatism is monetarism . The founder and leader of this school is Milton Friedman. "Monetary History of the United States" . Friedman's book is built on colossal statistical material, analyzes the dynamics of the gross national product, investment and money. Covers the period from 1867 to 1960.

Concludes that not investments, but money is the determining factor of development (refutes the conclusions of Keynes).

Consequently, the dynamics of GNP must be influenced through money. He brought out anti-inflation formula . annual "injecting money into circulation" should not exceed 4% (inflation rate). As a result, production growth by 3-4% will be ensured. Since 1974, Friedman's concept has been put into practice in all developed countries - an annual increase money supply – 4%.

M. Friedman explains the causes of the crisis of 1929-1933. a one quarter reduction in the money supply. He introduces the concept "natural rate of unemployment" . With the help of Keynes's recommendations, full employment was achieved in the Western countries in the post-war period. However, prices began to rise. There was a problem of definition relationship between inflation and unemployment . In 1958 an English economist Alban Phillips derived a graph (curve) of the dependence of the unemployment rate and wages.

This curve is generally consistent with Keynes' conclusions. Inflation is useful, as it leads to a decrease in unemployment and to an increase in "effective demand" - everyone runs to the store to buy, demand grows, production grows, investment in production grows.

However, in the late 1960s. - stagflation - simultaneous growth of both unemployment and inflation . M. Friedman explained this phenomenon by introducing the category "natural unemployment" .

L. Walras also wrote that the unemployed are those whose individual assessments of the usefulness of leisure are higher than the assessment of wages. If a wages are falling more people goes voluntarily unemployed . The demand for labor begins to grow, wages rise. The number of those willing to work increases, the supply of labor increases and wages begin to fall.

Friction - a type of unemployment that is temporary, spatial and social in nature (overproduction of economists - underproduction of drivers, change of residence, study, change of profession, etc.).

institutional factor - the presence of trade unions and the state. Unions do not allow workers to be fired. The state pays allowances and subsidies. This is necessary, but it is necessary to determine the natural unemployment rate . Defined it at 7%. If it exceeds this level, it will be forced; if it is below 7%, it will be idle.

Clarified the "Philips curve" by introducing the term inflation expectations . Entrepreneurs include inflation in production, workers in wages, demanding its increase. An increase in wages raises production costs, as a result, the economy returns to its original level of unemployment, but with a higher inflation rate. The policy of expansion is unable to reduce unemployment below the natural rate.

If unemployment is above 7% - this is the result of the activities of trade unions. To reduce the natural rate of unemployment, reduce frictional and institutional factors .

Help hired personnel not with benefits, but with information about employment.

Conduct staff retraining.

It is necessary that a person earns, and does not show dependence . Friedman's ideas in the 70s. prevailed over Keynesianism. A systematic program of denationalization of many branches of the national economy was carried out. This led to the recovery of the economy of a number of countries.

P. Samuelson V. Leontiev

The most prominent representatives neoclassical synthesis - Paul Samuelson (b. 1915). Wassily Leontiev (1906 - 1999), John Hills (1904 - 1989) .

Synthesis - harmonization of the labor theory of value and the theory of marginal utility, a combination of analysis at the macro (Keynes) and micro levels (Smith, Marshall).

« Neoclassical synthesis "aims at the search for mutually acceptable conclusions between the struggling concepts, representatives of different schools and trends. The unifying idea "maximizing" , the result of moving to state of balance.

The economy is one. It is studied not by different sciences, but by different approaches. The task is to make the most of their advantages.

Representatives of the neoclassical synthesis seek to eliminate the gap between macro- and microeconomics, to unite them into a single whole.

Mathematics is widely used as a tool for economic analysis (linear programming methods, pair theory, mathematical modeling).

They object to the transfer of theoretical constructions to the ground national economy regardless of its specificity.