The Minister of economic development (although, perhaps it would be better to call him “Minister degradation”). … issued another gem. It seems that the meaning of the existence of liberal Ministers is to divert attention from the monstrous statements of their Prime Minister like “no money, but you hold” and sending teachers in the business.
. Compare today’s Russia with the United States of the early 80-ies, saying then low inflation opened the way for large-scale lending. The point is simple: we have too low inflation – and, therefore, soon followed by her rebirth. We just have to be patient and hope for the liberals. This is a manifestation of a cargo cult that was taken over by the liberals in the underdeveloped tribes of Polynesia. The islanders built straw copies of the airfields, waiting for the advent of the white people with their benefits of civilization. And Russian liberals enthusiastically as a dog of fleas, looking for coincident with the Western reality of formal signs that proclaim: it’s all good now! The main thing is to do nothing and Holy (or blindly) believe in the dogma!
Meanwhile, the economic success of the US in the 80s, unsteady and interrupted stock-market crash of 1987 (but how to know about this “efficient young technocrat” Oreshkin?), was not caused by liberal disengagement from government regulation, but on the contrary, energetic state intervention. The basis of success – a sharp easing of fiscal policy in 1981, passed in high for U.S. inflation: 8.9 percent per annum (more than twice the current Russian). Revitalization business provided her a further decline (to 3.8 percent in 1982 and 1.1% in 1986).
This can be compared with postdefault policy of the Primakov government and the Central Bank Gerashchenko, but not with the current liberal nonsense.
More important elements of “Reaganomics” was tax cuts (not just for rich people – 6 million of the poor were fully exempt from Federal taxes) and led to a huge budget deficit, the increase in military spending. But it has become the locomotive of technological breakthrough of the United States.
Neither is categorically unacceptable for our liberal government, is a member…. Therefore, his reference to the experience of the United States the early 80s only to illustrate the long-proven fact: there is no economic progress this government of Amateurs we can not be. This is a medical fact.