The economic offer #2 (E.O.2)

“The Way, allowing to reach in the country general economic prosperity through state regulation of profitableness (restriction of profitableness in a percentage parity of the general profit of all members of the company (GPAMC) to technologically - tax net cost (TTNC)) of commercial activity (the commercial companies and individual businessmen)”.

Owing to mine E.O.1 hired workers of the commercial companies will be protected from inflation, from price increase on the goods. In fact now they become somewhat co-owners of the commercial companies. And at increase of a cost price of the goods made by the commercial company, also the wages automatically raise.

If in the country there is a general price increase (inflation) workers of the commercial companies can not be afraid of its (price increase). The percentage parity of partition of riches between capitalists and hired workers does not change. Only nominal size of a level of salaries aside their increases changes.

Thus, purchasing capacity of hired workers in the commercial companies is kept at a former level (at general price increase). But not all people work in the commercial companies. Many workers (and not workers) are so-called "state employees".

It, first, all civil servants: army, police (militia), special services, judicial system, prosecutor's office, customs, all officials of all ministries of the state.

Scientists of the state scientific research institutes, workers of Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education (the teacher and educators of kindergartens, high schools, the higher schools and т. Item). As well as all working in above-mentioned the organizations. As well as the workers temporarily lost work and receiving the unemployment benefits.

As well as the students of educational institutions receiving the grants. Briefly, all receiving means from the state budgets of all levels in the form of salaries, grants, etc., etc.

Secondly, not workers: pensioners and the unemployeds who are not receiving the unemployment benefits.

Thirdly, workers not budgetary, but also not the commercial organizations: the religious and charitable organizations.

And so, all these peoples appear not protected from the inflation occuring in the state scale. Also it turns out, that capitalists and hired workers of the commercial companies (which now too turn out to a certain extent capitalists) "exploit" all other adult citizens and theirchildren. That is, because of the high prices, all of them can buy less goods, than "businessmen". A competition between capitalists, certainly, in the certain degree reduces of the price for the goods, but as capitalists are interested in the maximal profit and without preliminary and direct arrangement between them, and if so it is possible to be expressed, by silent and indirect arrangement between them, the prices remain rather high, and it is frequent also very high. What to do? How to make so that also other citizens had a high material prosperity? I offer the following.

The maximal cost price of the goods (service) should be not above certain percentage parity of GPAMC to TTNC. For example, if TTNC (so to say, the full net cost) is equal 100 $ this goods maybe is sold no more, than for 110 $, (in the event that the parameter of restriction of profitableness (POP) is equal 10 %). That is, the following formula turns out: PG ($) = TTNC ($) + GPAMC ($), where PG - the price of the goods, and a sign: $ - is a nominal size in any currency ($ - I use a sign for convenience of understanding).

As well as: GPAMC ($) = TTNC ($) / 100 * POP (%), where the POP – a parameter of restriction of profitableness (in percentage). Thus, if TTNC = $100, the POP = 10 %, so: (TTNC) $ 100 / 100 * (POP) 10 % = $10 (GPAMC) and further: (TTNC) $100 + (GPAMC) $10 = (PG) $110.

Other example:TTNC = $200,POP = 50 %. Then $200 / 100 * 50 % = $100 (GPAMC).

Further: $200 + $100 = $300 (the price of the goods, PG), etc., etc. This rule extends as on the manufacturers selling the own made goods, and on the dealers buying the goods others and resell of it.

However, I suggest to limit profitableness not in all areas of the industry, I mean not on all the goods.But only on the consumer goods (CG). And on the goods (services) named by me, the goods of the special offer (GSO), restrictions to not impose essentially. What it is the goods?

For example, jeweler, antiquarian, any especially expensive cars (than they differ from cars-CG, should be stated by the government (legislature) in precise and clear descriptions) and so on. More in detail about it later.

Besides some types of commercial activity should not have restrictions of profitableness at all. First of all, it is area of art: work of the writer, the composer, the musician, the film-industry, theatres, circus and sports shows, etc. However, if necessary, the government can limit profit on any kinds of the goods (services) and, also, to remove restrictions.

Besides I consider what to limit profitableness follows only on the goods and the services sold inside of the country. The goods exported abroad, or the services provided to foreign citizens inside of the country (too a version of export), it is not necessary to limit on profitableness.

That is, export deals are not a subject to restriction on profitableness.

But here there can be a dangerous situation: firms interested in the maximal profitableness, will try to sell as much as possible production abroad (to export), consequently, the country will receive sharp lack of some production inside of the country.

Consequently, there will be a speculation, so large-scale what to cope it it will be impossible. And as a result: the high prices (on speculative sale) on the goods; and all the same the goods will not suffice on all. What to do?

I answer. First, in the most prompt future export-import of the ready goods will be shown to a minimum.

I am sure, that all the countries will try very much that the maximum quantity of the goods was made inside of the country because it in interests of all people of any country.

The greatest possible protectionism is a way to economic prosperity of all people and any government which will try to resist in it to people, will be instantly overthrow and is crushed in a flat cake! So many goods simply could not be exported. But, certainly, not all the goods, as "ready", and especially raw material. Thus, all the same, the problem completely is not solved.

I answer further. Secondly, I offer following antidote. It consists that export deals are not limited on profitableness, but thus the SPECIAL NEW EXPORT DUTY (SNED) is entered.

I shall emphasize, it is added to already existing export duties which already enter in TTNC the goods assessed above-mentioned duties.

SNED it is established the next size: the size of the duty depends on percentage parity GPAMC to the TTNC.

That is, also there is a restriction of actual profitableness on export deal in the same size of the POP, as in domestic trade, but through SNED. Size of GPAMC on export deal should not exceed in relation to TTNC, for example, 10 % (20 %, 30 %, etc.). All other profit, (I.e. over 10 %), should be paid as SNED. Thus, profitableness identical, both in domestic trade, and in external, and "super income" of export acts goes to the budget of the state. That is, if inside of the country the goods is on sale (if the POP = 10 %) for $110, (if TTNC of the goods = $100), and abroad it is possible to sell it for $200, size of SNED will be = $90. That is SNED – this all sum which exceeds the POP.

For example, $100 = 100 % of TTNC of any goods, the POP = 10 %, and if this goods has been sold abroad for $200, so, SNED will be = $200 - $100- $10 = $90. That is SNED it is calculated under the formula:

SNED = PG - TTNC - POP.

Also example. If TTNC =$ 100, the goods abroad has been sold for $1000, SNED = $1000 - $100 - $10 = $890.

So, it is possible to not be afraid thus of that the goods will leave abroad, inside of the country shortage of the goods, and that goods which will be on sale inside of the country – will cost expensive, and also in speculative commerce. And all the same the goods on all will not suffice, etc.

I am sure, that businessmen and their hired workers will wish SNED was not entered, and will swear, that will work fairly, and inside of the country there will be enough goods, inexpensive and qualitative. They "will be socially responsible". Really, it is more favorable to them to receive export super profit, instead of to pay SNED.

All other citizens, probably, will wish SNED was entered into practice of the taxation. In fact SNED will go in to the budget, so, and to state employees. Who will win this struggle of interests – we shall see.

I wish to tell about following possible danger. There can be "fictitious" intermediaries (O.E. #1), both at export deals, and at sales inside of the country. I shall begin with export.

Firm F-1 sells the goods to the affiliated firm F-2 (F-2 it is registered abroad, in the country – the importer) on "internal" price. For example, TTNC of the goods = $100, the "internal" price = $101 (thus, SNED it is not paid). The price on which F-2 sells the goods in the country-importer = $950. What to do in this case? I ask to recollect my E.O.1. There the similar situation is already considered. C E.O.1 onsequently, we shall do the same way, in fact it is the "fictitious" intermediary. And not “to deprive with the license”, and to begin criminal case.

The appropriating law should be approved, and all this swindle should be registered as crime.

Now about fictitious intermediaries inside of the country. I shall repeat, that all is told in O.E. #1. However, it is necessary to notice, that swindle can be complex, multilevel. Five firms of intermediaries which can belong to different people, instead of to one person can operate, for example. The government should to watch closely a situation with a condition of commerce in the country. But, including, for that government also exists and if governors declare, that they not in a condition to work well, let will voluntary leave better, and others let will come.

I wish to add also, that all the same, owing to mine O.E. #2, businessmen will not manage to receive super profit so, and "to exploit" from people. Earlier, (up to me), at a net cost = $100 (TTNC + SNC), the goods (the consumer goods!!! (CG)) could be sold for $500, and for $800, now, (if POP = 10 %), it will be sold a maximum for $110!!!

But, suppose, that really there are the actual "fictitious" intermediaries who are not belonging one person, but, undoubtedly, operating on arrangement to objective of reception of the greatest possible profit. And such intermediaries, for example, five. So, the manufacturer sells, at TTNC = $100 the goods to the dealer for $110. Further intermediaries operate: ($121+ TTNC¹), resale ($133 + TTNC²), resale ($146 + TTNC³), resale ($160 + TTNC⁴), resale ($176 + TTNC⁵) = ($193 + TTNC⁶). I shall explain, that TTNC^{1 +} TTNC^{2 +} TTNC^{3 +} TTNC^{4 +} TTNC⁵ = TTNC⁶ means that "own" a net cost of intermediaries are summarized also by all this enters into a final price to the goods.

I shall emphasize, that own net cost of the intermediary increases to a procurement price of the goods that resell. That is, the "first" dealer buys the goods from the manufacturer for $110, and resell it to other dealer for the price = $121 + TTNC¹ where TTNC¹ is technologically-tax (TT) a net cost (the first (¹) dealers, etc. There is the great difference: $110 or $193!

Though all the same, earlier they could make a price (all together, on $100 a net cost), $500, and $1000. And if all in the country operate on such way, the price will be equal $1000. Now this organization (some kind of a mafia) could survive only the price = $193.

Again I shall repeat the government should to watch closely a situation with a condition of commerce in the country and to stop similar economically unjustified way of sale of the goods.

And now I wish to list 17 industries in Russia with which it is necessary to begin regulation of profitableness:

1. Oil-and-gas and petrochemical (PETROLEUM PRODUCTS);

2. Electropower (manufacture and translation of the electric power);

3. Housing and communal services;

4. Coal;

5. Railway and motor transportation (by the way, for a taxi, buses, etc. it is necessary to enter restrictions for a ceiling price in face value, that is for one km no more (for example,

$1); but also here there are the GSO: limousines and other cars of a representation class);

6. Commerce, including drugstores (except for GSO: jeweller, antiquarian, art, for example, pictures, sculptures, etc.);

7. Pharmaceutical (except for new, patents medicines);

8. The Food-processing industry (not plant growing and animal industries);

9. Tailoring of children's clothes;

10. Public catering (except for GSO: restaurants in which go to eat not so much, but “to show the social status”);

11. Electronic communication (phones, the Internet);

12. The Building industry;

13. Agrochemical (fertilizers, forages and agrochemical additives);

14. Agricultural mechanical engineering;

15. CG of the cosmetic industry (namely: soap,

Tooth-paste, shampoos, balms - conditioners for hair, cosmetics for shaving, the creams humidifying leather. All rest to consider GSO);

16. Energy mechanical engineering;

17. The industry of chemical washing-up liquids.

To enter restriction of profit follows on CG but provided that they are not patents, as patents the goods should be considered as GSO. For "wide" and "traditional" demands can be completely satisfied by the "old" goods. And all invented really has the special offer, the special valuable qualities. The neglect this rule can lead to very fast technological backlog of the country and, as consequence, to defeat in possible war.

Let us recall, for example, the Crimean war (the middle of XIX century), or war between Russia and Japan (1904-1905), or the beginning of Great Patriotic war, or modern Iraqui - American wars. So all this very serious things!

I shall emphasize, it is not necessary to limit incomes owner of patent; purchase of licenses by the manufacturer at owner of patent will be included into a net cost of manufacturers. And profit of the "simple" manufacturer and the more so dealer, very much even properly to limit. (if such decision will be accepted citizens and the government).

The end.

Video of the appeal and the foreword – February, 2011.

Economic offers #1 and #2 – February, 2009.