If the process is managed successfully, the purchasing power of the monetary unit on all the markets should (at the most) grow as the time passes by, and (at least) decrease slower than the purchasing capacity of other monetary units. That feature, intentionally supported over long time spans, makes it preferable as a dominating world means of payment in comparison with the rest of monetary units.
Secondly, it is management of purchasing power of monetary units of other countries, which defines their rates of exchange to the world unit of payment.
Since the functions are separated in such a way, the global credit-and-finance system, which acts on the basis of a world monetary unit, performs more or less efficiently the function of assembling the global economy from a variety of regional (national) macroeconomies. And the state-run credit-and-finance systems, which work on the basis of their national units of payment, more or less efficiently perform the procedure of assembling national economies, which are regarded as ‘microeconomies’ in comparison with the global macroeconomy.
It follows as a logical consequence that the direct internal author of the fall of ruble exchange rate on August,17, 1998, was the government of V.S. Chernimyrdin, not V.S. Kiriyenko.
In January, 1988, in Davos, V.S. Chernimyrdin announced the ‘we have to raise the Central Bank refinancing rate up to 46%’ (before it came up to 21%, which was not less harmful). Six months later the usurers from the Central Bank, on order of the Russian government increased the knowingly nonreimbursable debt, which annihilated a part of ruble’s purchasing capacity, so the ruble exchange rates fell down. The responsibility was passed onto S.V.Kiriyenko, who allegedly acted wrongly; but after a usury bounce allowed by the government of V.S. Chernomyrdin, whatever actions within the frames of economics for ‘clerks’ were done, they inevitably led to crisis.
We just wonder if V.S. Chernomyrdin is an intellectual pervert, whose economic views are perverted by economic theories for ‘clerks’, or there was a direct dictate in Davos, which he submitted to, or both assumptions are true.
Relative exchange rates in global exchange of goods are the most generalized expression of mutual claim balance for the trade parties of two nations, each of which is trying to cover, on the account of the other party, a component of needs spectrum that is produced insufficiently. This statement is a commonplace. However, when we consider al possible pairs of such commonplaces, we can ask a question: ‘how do you express an absolute rate of exchange of means of payment?’
Now we can give the answer to that question.
An absolute rate of exchange of means of payment is the standard of its energy backing, realized in a particular (of global importance) concept of accessible energy potential management in its external and internal production-and-consumption exchange of goods, when a particular quality level is achieved (in accordance with the concept chosen).
The limitation printed in italics does not let us define the relative exchange rates unambiguously, as a value of energy backing standard supported by state by means of macroeconomic management.
But it allows us to understand that the behaviour of a conceptually indefinite management (i.e. an attempt to implement two mutually exclusive concepts within the same society) dooms the state to a low exchange rate of its currency.
For Russia, it means that there is a need to decide:
if the Russians are going to become slaves, whose consumption welfare will be determined by the arbitrariness of masters of the Biblical-Talmudic project (in the past, that ideal aim used to be called ‘capitalism’, bourgeois democracy, and now it is called ‘the civil society’), like in ‘advanced’ European countries and in America, and in their former colonies;
or if there will be neither slaves, nor slave-holders, but humanity instead, and all the human needs of each person separately and all people together will be satisfied in a guaranteed way in the succession of generations (in the past it used to be called ‘communism’, however the ruling elites prevented it from being built, for the ruling elites were enslaved by their own degradation-parasite spectrum of needs. They distorted the people’s ideal of communism and the work of its implementation in everyday life by means of their policy.
The person who makes a choice of one of the two mentioned above, mutually exclusive concepts of life of the humankind on the Earth, should know that the Russians are from the point of view of a slave-holder) an ignoble, pitchy, and inutile slave, who is always ready to stab his lord in the back or burn him together with his relatives in his house.
A Russian slave cannot be entrusted anything. Whatever he does, he will do it lousy, impermissibly low quality, and the materials and tools will be stolen.
As a result of that morally-psychological feature of the Russians of different ethnical background, it will never be possible to build ‘capitalism’ or ‘civil society’ in Russia and in the nations that have been under the rule of Russian civilization. As a concomitant circumstance, the absolute rate of exchange of ruble, which represents the management quality correspondingly to the implemented (in practical policy) concept of slavery establishing, will always drop, and as a result, the relative exchange rate of ruble will drop as well.
High quality of management in accordance with the implemented practical policy (either manifestly, or by default) can be achieved in Russia only if a Russian feels himself a master at work, in distribution sector, in consumption sector. In Russia, top quality management can be achieved only if the policy is targeted at the establishing of Lord’s Kingdom on the Earth, that is ‘communism.’
It was proven by economic, scientific and technological ‘wonders’ of Stalinist йpoque[15]. Honestly, slave labour is inefficient, so the peoples of the USSR could rise –for three decades - from primitive plough (and some of them – from the primitive state) to the heights of technological and scientific progress and the best in the world educational background. Labour at that time was efficient because the people gained a new quality of freedom, which they lacked in the Russian Empire, and what those who criticize that йpoque and personally I.V. Stalin, cannot understand.
Although everything presented here was written in the tideway of a particular concept opposing ill-will (as we see it), nevertheless, the concept and glossary of economics for masters itself allows to use it for production and distribution management in line with the concept of ‘how many of those bastards’ do we need and how to keep their bodies and souls together at a minimum subsistence level so that the ‘real people’ were always very well off.
That is why we need to shed some light on the general matters of jurisprudence, particularly, the problem of property.
3. Ownership
Right is an open possibility to do something having a guarantee that you would not be hurt by retribution for what you have done. According to Russian outlook on the world, such notions as ‘right’ and ‘rightfulness’ are mutually connected, and their word roots are the same. Therefore right expresses righteousness, so right is higher than the law, which may express unrighteousness. The assertion that ‘Right’ and ‘Law’ are synonyms comes from ill-will and is an example of obtrusion of mixed up notions on the society in order to substitute right by unrighteous law.
Correspondingly, if we traverse the subject within the framework of the system of thinking where ‘Right’ and ‘Law’ are synonyms, we will have to distinguish in social life two categories of rights: