Security forces finally "privatized" Russia probably tell what any ordinary citizen underestimates the present danger and to defend the need to spend a lot more. There are three circumstances Meanwhile, showing that it is not

Recently in the news more and more often flashed reports of unexpected military maneuvers successfully tested new missiles, an increase in the volume of Russian arms exports - and the whole of the "return" of Russia on the world stage as a strong military power. I'm not going to talk about the political and moral aspects of how the modern world need a new arms race, which Russia tries to tighten, starting revision of the post-war borders in Europe. I confine myself to purely economic aspects.

In 2015, the Russian Federation spent on "defense" (I put the word in quotation marks, since no one is going to attack and not to do it - do not know the history of the cases of aggression against nuclear power) 3.28 trillion rubles - 5.4% of GDP (according to SIPRI estimates) of the country, entering the top five world leaders on the growth of expenditures for these purposesover the last ten years. Note: in European NATO countries, military spending accounted for last year of 1.75% of GDP, while in the US - 3.9%.

This means (in the first approximation) that we are going in the same way a disproportionate increase in spending on the military, which at one time led to the collapse of the Soviet Union's economy.

Even more impressive is the fact that Americans are spending from the federal budget on the army by 35% less than the cost of health care, and we - 8.4 times more. In Germany, defense spending accounts for only 9% of pensions paid in the country, and we have - almost 40%. As far as reasonably deal with war games today, when, on the one hand, they provoke the same NATO countries to build up their forces on our borders and, on the other hand, consume budget, which is critical not enough for the majority of social programs (the notorious indexation of pensions in accordance with the rate of inflation in 2016 would require 540 billion rubles, or 1/6 in military spending)?

Security forces finally "privatized" Russia probably tell what any ordinary citizen underestimates nounETS danger and defense need to spend much more. Courtiers economists habitually talk about maintaining a "high-tech" and the benefits of arms exports. However, it is no secret that 80% used in electronics MIC supplied by imports (on the "substitution" of the product will take, according to the officials themselves, to 15 years), and the export of arms from Russia brings as much oil exports for 34 days - so that if we invested in modern oil production technology, the benefits were much greater. Meanwhile, there are three factors that significantly devalue all this rhetoric.

Firstly, military production in Russia have very low multiplier effect. If, for example, Boeing and Airbus in the US and Europe produce 25-40% of military and civilian 60-75%, we have no defense industry in the market of consumer goods and equipment for "citizen", and therefore, no spillover of economic growth is not It occurs. Companies that receive the state order in the "defense industry", part of the funds is not allowed and do not reinvest profits in their "daughters", pBotha on the market - and thus we are unable to stimulate broad-based economic growth that can be achieved in other countries.

Second, the military sector in Russia (as in his time in the Soviet Union) remains extremely ogosudarstvlen. If in the US the average money received by the winner of the tender Pentagon, reach more than 400 companies in the complex chain of subcontracting, in Russia they are almost completely "revolve" within complex conglomerates, built not for the sake of increasing the efficiency of production, but solely in order to avoid to release budget money "on the side", ie. e.do not share them with the private sector. This not only reduces competition and increases costs, but also creates an incentive for even greater consolidation and nationalization in the sector.

Thirdly, it is also important, often referred to "transfer" of military technologies to the civilian sector worked well as long as in the military and in civilian industry dominated by mass production - then the planes were built as military, later reshaped in civil, tanks turnedin vivo Recording tractor and radar radiation device - in microwave ovens. But during the progress of the situation has changed. As shown in J. Elika and his colleagues, the end of the 1980s was the last decade, during which has been swept pure transfer of military technology to civilian sector [Alic, John A., et al. Beyond Spinoff: Military and Commercial Technologies in a Changing World, Cambridge (Ma.): Harvard Business School Press, 1992]; The 1990s were marked lull, and with 2000's stream completely turned in the opposite direction.

Of course, all this does not interest jammed in the Soviet view of the world the Russian elite - because for her escalating defense expenditure and arms production has two "positive" consequences: a statistically it promotes the growth of GDP in the crisis, and politically - supported social stability in many regions.

Current military expenditure for all the corruption chain, along which the budget money is added to the GDP to 1.5%, thereby transforming almost inevitable (eg in 2016), the decline in the minimum, but the growth. In addition, given that the MIC work up to a quarter of people employed inmanufacturing industries, the sector supports the welfare costs of 5-6 million Russians (together with their families, "home front workers"), which is no less than 10% of active voters.

But then that brings only an illusory effect, creating myths about economic growth and electoral support. Myths, which will be scattered in the same moment when the melt budgetary reserves. But unfortunately, when a new arms race may already be real - and the situation is quite repeat history a quarter century ago. Wondered whether this are those who prefer to generate illusions now, and not to assess the reality? Looks like no.