Both the previous (1989) government's "emergency measures" program and the current "transition to the market" program, as well as Shatalin's "500 days", have no other concerns and goals other than bringing the money supply into some alignment with the level of production. The "market" plays the role of a label here, pasted for the sake of importance and external attractiveness. In oral speeches (for example, at the Supreme Soviet of the USSR), S. Shatalin did not hide this. Organizing a productive market is a matter of decades, and maybe more than one. The macroeconomic situation is on fire.


There are two principal ways to restore macroeconomic equilibrium. First, you can freeze your income and put it on the production of consumer goods. This was last year's "emergency measures" program. They did not explain to us why it was abandoned in February, but it is not difficult to guess. The government was unable to resist extortionate threats and comply with the law on taxation of salary increments. On the other hand, the promise to increase the production of consumer goods by 67 billion rubles over the year was an obvious bluff. And the budget deficit of 60 billion rubles and the new issue of 10 billion rubles per year provided for in the anti-inflationary program are completely ridiculous. Even if this issue is evenly distributed throughout the year, an additional 10 billion rubles will be allocated. new money for the year will increase the purchasing power of the company by at least 100 billion rubles. What is a fake 67 billion? goods versus a 100 billion increase in potential demand? (In fact, by September, not 10 billion rubles had been printed, but 19 billion rubles.) Thus, the program was doomed from the very beginning, which, by the way, was noted in the periodicals. But in principle, we repeat, the emphasis on the consumer sector while effectively freezing monetary incomes is a reasonable stabilization policy, and there is experience of its successful application, although not with such an imbalance as ours.


An action program such as "emergency measures" corrects, albeit slowly, the economic structure due to the accelerated development of the consumer sector. However, maintaining the same volume of basic industries and investment activity reduces or even negates the anti-inflationary effect. If these sectors are overfed, slow structural improvement will be accompanied by inflation, and accelerating at that. And so it turned out at the very beginning of 1990. The introduction of "emergency measures" has spurred inflation, against which, as hoped, the measures were directed. Game night coming up? Be prepared with printable rules from Phase 10 Rules .