History knows a lot of global crises: comprehensive or affecting a narrow circle of countries, protracted and shorter - their causes, as a rule, are always different, and the consequences are extremely similar. Crisis phenomena leave their mark not only on the economies of countries, but also on human destinies, turning many people (sometimes even the wealthiest) into beggars literally in a day.
The twentieth century was rich in world economic crises . The First and Second World Wars played a significant role in this, during which the financial markets of countries turned into “ruins”, like cities after bombings...
Financial crisis of 1907
The series of crises of the twentieth century opens with the crisis of 1907, which affected 9 countries. The reasons for this are purely economic, expressed in the Bank of England increasing the discount rate to 6% from the original 3.5%. The purpose of such actions by Great Britain was the desire to replenish its gold reserves. The influx of capital into the country turned out to be simply incredible, with the United States becoming its main source. Accordingly, in the United States itself this led to negative consequences: the collapse stock market, a decline in business activity, a liquidity crisis and a protracted economic recession. These events immediately affected Italy, France and some other countries.World crisis of 1914
The global financial crisis of 1914 arose in the run-up to the First World War. It was caused by a complete sale valuable papers, issued by foreign issuers. States needed monetary resources to finance ongoing military operations, and the USA, Great Britain, Germany, France and some other countries sold their securities without hesitation. This global crisis is perhaps the only one of all that did not develop according to the “domino principle”, but arose in most countries almost at the same time. Global and national markets for goods and money have collapsed. In a number of countries, the situation was saved thanks to the intervention of Central Banks.The First World War also ended with the crisis of 1920-1922, caused by post-war deflation against the background, as well as currency and banking crises in a number of countries.
1929-1933 – Great Depression
There are many “dark” days in the history of crises, and most of them are associated with the United States. It was with “Black Thursday” on October 24, 1929 that the next world crisis began, which turned into a great depression that affected the whole world. It all started with a sharp drop in the Dow Jones index and stock prices on the New York stock market. After the end of World War I, the US economy experienced an unprecedented rise, and the securities market became an attractive platform for investment by other countries, which caused an outflow of capital from countries Latin America and Europe. Stock market crash amid tightening monetary policy The US Federal Reserve has led to multiple stock crises around the world. This was immediately followed by a decline in production in all countries affected by the crisis, by an average of half, and, as a consequence, huge unemployment. Under the dominance of the “gold standard” system, the authorities of many states were unable to make the necessary cash injections into the economy, which only aggravated the situation. The crisis dominated the world until 1933, and its echoes were felt until the 40s of the last century.Crisis of 1957
After the end of World War II, the first crisis that affected several countries at once was the crisis of 1957. It struck the USA, Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and a number of other countries of the capitalist system. The crisis continued until mid-1958.Oil crisis of 1973-1974
The 1973-1974 crisis was called the oil crisis because it was caused by a sharp and unprecedented increase in oil prices, which increased by almost 400% (from 3 to 12 dollars per barrel). Part of the reason for this phenomenon was the decrease in oil production in Arab countries, and partly the Israeli war against Syria and Egypt. All allied countries of Israel (including the United States) stopped receiving oil supplies from Arab countries. During the crisis, the dependence of the economies of developed countries on energy prices was clearly exposed.1987
Once again, the United States experiences a black day - “Black Monday” on October 19, 1987, when another collapse of the country’s stock market occurs due to a sharp drop in the Dow Jones Industrial index by 22.6%. Following the US, the stock markets of Canada, Australia, and South Korea, Hong Kong.This was followed by a series of more localized crises: in 1994-1995 - Mexican crisis , in 1997 – Asian crisis and in 1998 – Russian crisis .
The 1998 crisis turned out to be one of the most difficult in history for Russia. Devaluation, default... lay in the huge amount of public debt, the low level of prices for raw materials in the world, as well as the large debt of the state to repay state bonds, the deadlines for which had already passed.
This is the history of the world crises of the twentieth century. Its successor, the 21st century, has already begun its record of “dark days”...
Nefedov S.A.
The previous period of human history was marked by the formation of a new industrial society. If the previous agrarian society was characterized by peasant, largely subsistence farms, now people lived in cities, produced industrial goods and exchanged them for food and raw materials brought from distant countries. With the growth of industrial society, competition between firms and companies producing goods gradually increased; Already in the first half of the 19th century, periodic crises of overproduction began to be observed. During the years of crisis, many companies went bankrupt and were taken over by more than large companies; Thus, there was a process of concentration of production and capital. TO end of the 19th century century, as a result of mergers and acquisitions, huge industrial monopolies, trusts and syndicates emerged, consisting of many smaller companies. At the same time, the process of merging industrial and banking capital was underway; banks acquired shares of industrial companies, and trusts created their own banks that attracted funds from small investors.
The possibilities for the development of industrial production depend on the volume of the market for food and raw materials for which these goods are exchanged. Globally, this market remains limited, and by the end of the 19th century it was largely divided among the industrial powers. One form of market division was the creation of colonial empires, another was agreements on “spheres of influence.” England took advantage of its primacy and created a huge colonial empire with a population of 390 million people, France seized territories with a population of 55 million people, and Germany acquired lands with a population of 12 million. The markets of the powers and their colonies were protected from the penetration of foreign goods by customs duties, often exceeding half the cost of the goods. The few countries that remained independent were divided into "spheres of influence" in which one power or another had trade dominance.
England and France, who captured most of the markets, did not allow German goods into them and, thereby, hindered the further economic development of Germany. Meanwhile, Germany was significantly superior to these countries industrially and militarily; Thus, the question arose about the redistribution of markets using military methods. In 1914, the First World War began. Germany hoped to defeat its opponents in a couple of months, but these calculations did not take into account the role of the new weapon that had appeared at that time - the machine gun. The machine gun gave a decisive advantage to the defending side; The German offensive was stopped and a long “trench war” began. Meanwhile, the English fleet blocked German ports and interrupted food supplies. In 1916, famine began in Germany; The military government introduced surplus appropriation; all grain produced was bought by the state at nominal prices and issued to the population on ration cards; all enterprises operated according to state plans. A difficult situation also developed in Russia, the tsarist government paid for military expenses by printing money, as a result, landowners refused to sell their grain for depreciated credit cards; the government, as in Germany, tried to introduce food surplus and rationing - but it did not have enough strength, they began to hide bread, famine began in the cities and at the front - as a result, a revolution broke out. The main slogan of the revolution was the same as in 1905: “Land to the peasants!” The Bolsheviks confiscated the landowners' lands and distributed them to the peasants; as a result, a civil war began. During the war, surplus appropriation was introduced and industry was nationalized - as in Germany, these measures were dictated mainly by military necessity. After the end of the war, the surplus appropriation system was abolished, many enterprises were returned to the old ones or transferred to new owners - this was called the “new economic policy"(NEP).
In general, the revolution of 1917 was a manifestation of the usual patterns of an agrarian society; it was caused by overpopulation and brought to power new kings who gave land to the peasants. It was a crisis that completed another demographic cycle. As usually happens, the crisis was accompanied by a demographic catastrophe - the population decreased from 170 to 147 million.
By 1925, the post-war economic recovery was largely completed and the Bolshevik government began to hatch plans for the industrialization of the country. As in the previous period, money for the purchase of equipment could only be obtained by exporting grain. In 1926-1928, the government tried to get this money by buying grain from peasants and selling it in the West. However, the peasants refused to sell bread at low state prices. Under these conditions, the Bolsheviks took a course towards collectivization and the creation of collective farms, which would become a mechanism for confiscating grain from the peasants. At the same time, in order to accumulate financial resources, it was liquidated private sector in industry.
Hasty and forced collectivization led to the 1932 famine. The grain harvest fell to 70 million tons, the peasants did not want to give their livestock to collective farms - as a result, 10 out of 30 million cows were slaughtered. Position in agriculture recovered only by 1940, when grain harvest exceeded the level of 1913. At the same time, yields remained low, but great progress was made in implementation new technology, tractors and combines.
The removal of grain from the village and the accumulation of all funds for the construction of new enterprises made it possible to industrialize the country. In 1928-1940, several thousand large enterprises were built; Compared to 1913, industrial production increased 8.5 times. This growth was all the more striking because Western industry was in a state of crisis and stagnation. Soviet Union became a powerful industrial power, in terms of production volume it was equal to Germany - although it was much inferior to the United States.
The First World War brought ruin to Europe, but fantastically enriched the United States. Being in a difficult situation, England and France paid huge amounts of money for war materials, and American entrepreneurs, receiving enormous profits, hastily expanded production. During the war years, US industrial production increased by 2.5 times, and exports by 3 times. In 1920, the United States produced 42 million tons of steel - 60% of world production. However, after the war, a crisis began, production fell by one third. American companies had to start fighting for foreign markets; in China, the US's main rival was Japan; in Latin America - England and Germany. The massive export of capital began; in terms of the amount of capital exported, the United States soon surpassed England. In 1923, a new boom began, it was associated with the development of mass production of cars. Even before the war, Henry Ford established assembly line production, and the car became affordable for farmers and workers. During 1921-1928, automobile production in the United States tripled, from 1.5 to 4.8 million, which accounted for three-quarters of world production. However, by 1929 the market was saturated and the “great crisis” began. On October 24, 1929, panic began on the stock exchange, the average stock price halved, and shares of the leading automobile company General Motors fell 80 times. Production cuts and mass layoffs began; by 1932, production had halved and half the workers were unemployed. Millions of hungry people roamed the roads from state to state in search of work, and food riots broke out in some places.
IN previous period Americans were so accustomed to a prosperous life that only a tenth of them belonged to trade unions, and there were no unemployment benefits or old-age pensions in the country. In the 1932 election, Democratic candidate Franklin Roosevelt proposed a system social security and became president. To lead the country out of the crisis, Roosevelt proclaimed a “New Deal” in economics. The reforms were based on the ideas of the famous English economist John Keynes, who argued that capitalism had ceased to be a self-governing system, and the government should move to state regulation of the economy. In 1933, the “National Industrial Recovery Act” was adopted, according to which the state determined for each enterprise the volume of production, sales markets, price levels and wages, working hours. A social security system was created and collective agreements were introduced. Public works and labor camps were organized for the unemployed. America began to gradually emerge from the crisis, and over time, measures to regulate the economy became less stringent. By 1939, the US economy had reached pre-crisis levels.
In Germany, as well as in Russia, the World War caused a national catastrophe and an acute social crisis. In the political sphere, the result of the crisis was the fall of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic with universal suffrage; an 8-hour working day and social guarantees were introduced. Germany was able to get out of the crisis only because it dealt the main blow to Germany. By 1932, half the population had lost their jobs, the authorities were unable to pay benefits, and violent hunger demonstrations took place in the cities.
In this situation, Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Party won the elections; Hitler promised to give everyone a job. After the Nazis came to power, the economy was nationalized; the owners of enterprises practically lost their property rights and turned into “Fuhrer” managers. In their work, the “Führers” obeyed instructions from the center; they received a small percentage of the profits. The surplus appropriation system was restored in the village, all products were handed over to the state at fixed prices. Just like in the Soviet Union, all economic activity regulated by state plans.
Hitler's main goal was a new war for the redistribution of food and raw materials markets. For this purpose, the military industry was built up, industrial production was restored and by 1939 exceeded the pre-war level by 40%.
The revolutions in Russia and Germany had a great influence on the development of other European states. Under the influence of the mass strikes of 1918-19, an 8-hour working day and collective agreements were introduced in France, and universal free primary education was introduced in England and women's suffrage was granted. In 1923-24, socialist parties came to power for the first time in England and France. However, rising wages and increasing social spending led to capital flight - this phenomenon later became a characteristic consequence of the rule of the socialists. It leads to slowdown economic development and to the fact that power returns to the bourgeois parties. Overall, development in England and France during the interwar period was slow; Compared to 1913, production increased by only 20-30%. At the same time, dominance over vast markets softened the effects of the global crisis of 1929; in England and France there was no such unemployment as in the USA and Germany. Germany demanded from England and France access to the markets they controlled and the return of the colonies - the conflict that caused the First World War eventually erupted into a new war.
Nesterov A.K. History of economic crises // Nesterov Encyclopedia
The history of economic crises goes back more than 200 years. Industrial development on a global scale has led to the actualization of a number of processes that contribute to the emergence of crises.
Causes of world economic crises
All crises were characterized by a decline in industrial production, an oversupply of goods, a decrease in demand and prices, bankruptcies of banks and enterprises, and rising unemployment.
A crisis is an imbalance between the supply and demand of goods and services.
Crises first began as a result of underproduction of agricultural products, and then became a consequence of overproduction of industrial goods against the background of a decrease in effective demand.
It should also be noted that before the 20th century, crises occurred within several countries and did not have the nature of global economic crises, as began to happen later.
Despite the broad capabilities of anti-crisis and anti-cyclical regulation mechanisms, it is not possible to avoid new global crises.
World economic crises of the late 18th – early 19th centuries
First economic crisis general overproduction occurred in 1825. However, it was preceded by a whole period of economic development, in which industrial crises were a relatively frequent occurrence.
But at that time there were no conditions for these crises to acquire the character of regularly recurring cyclical crises of general overproduction. At this time, the process of maturation of these conditions was still taking place, i.e. conditions under which crises became cyclical and became crises of general overproduction.
In 1788, a crisis occurred in the cotton industry in England. It also affected other sectors of the textile industry, but overall the English economy did not experience serious shocks. In 1793, England experienced a monetary crisis associated with credit expansion. But it was also associated with the crisis state of production. This was the first monetary crisis in history, which expressed a crisis in industry and trade. In 1797, England again experienced a financial crisis associated with overproduction of goods. It hit the cotton industry the hardest.
The next crisis of the English economy occurred in 1810. Having begun in the sphere of trade, the crisis again struck industry, primarily the cotton industry. But rising unemployment and falling wages have created a difficult situation for other industries producing consumer goods.
During the next crisis in 1815, overproduction spread to the iron and steel and coal industries. This coincided with the agricultural crisis. During that period, for the first time in history, the fixed capital of many enterprises depreciated. The crisis has affected the economy European countries and the USA.
The next crisis occurred four years later in 1819, and at that time the level preceding the crisis of 1815 had not yet been reached. This seriously aggravated its consequences, greatly reducing the standard of living of the population.
Such a series of economic crises is not typical for today.
Crises of the late XVIII – early XIX centuries. have the following features:
- these were partial crises, they meant an overcrowded market, sales difficulties, and a reduction in production;
- their influence was felt in other countries, but they were not yet of a global nature;
- monetary crises, previously independent, were now an expression of overproduction of goods;
- the alternation of crises was not cyclical, there was no clear periodicity in their alternation, and the timing of the onset of the crisis was determined external factors, for example, wars, and there was still no clear alternation of phases of the cycle;
- overcoming the consequences of crises was carried out on the basis of bankruptcies and ruins of viable enterprises, strong reductions in prices and wages, and the ruin of small-scale manual production.
All other crises up to our time can be divided into pre-monopoly and monopolistic. Of the pre-monopoly crises, the crises of 1857 and 1890 are of great importance.
World economic crises of the 19th century
Crisis of 1857 was the first global crisis and the most serious of all the economic crises that occurred before it. During the year and a half of the crisis in England, production volume in the textile industry decreased by 21%, in shipbuilding - by 26%. Iron production in France decreased by 13%, in the USA - by 20%, in Germany - by 25%. Cotton consumption fell in France by 13%, in the UK by 23%, and in the USA by 27%. Russia has experienced great crisis shocks. Iron smelting in Russia decreased by 17%, the production of cotton fabrics by 14%, and woolen fabrics by 11%.
The next global economic crisis occurred in 1873, starting in Austria and Germany, it is an international financial crisis. The preconditions for the crisis were a credit boom in Latin America and speculation in the real estate market in Germany and Austria. May 1873 was marked by the collapse of the Vienna stock market, followed by the collapse of the stock markets in Zurich and Amsterdam. After the collapse of the New York Stock Exchange and numerous bankruptcies, German banks refused to extend loans to Americans and, as a result, the economies of the United States and European countries fell into a prolonged depression, which caused a drop in exports from Latin American countries. It is believed that this was the longest crisis of the capitalist system, as it ended only in 1878.
Crisis of 1890 was a global financial crisis. At the same time, there was also a global crisis of overproduction. All countries passed through it: England, France, with some delay (1893) the USA, Russia, Argentina, Australia. The crisis accelerated the development of pre-monopoly capital into monopoly capital, the concentration of production and the centralization of capital.
World economic crises of the 20th century
In 1914, the first global economic crisis of the 20th century was caused by the outbreak of war and was caused by the massive sale of securities of foreign issuers by the governments of the USA, Great Britain, France and Germany. Characteristic feature This economic crisis was due to the fact that on a global scale it had no center and periphery, since it began in several countries at once, which found themselves in different military camps. The fall in both commodity and money markets led to a banking panic in several countries at once: the USA, Great Britain and others. At that moment central banks used large-scale interventions in falling markets.
In fact, the continuation of this crisis was the superposition of deflationary processes on the decline in production, which resulted in economic crisis of 1920-1922 in Denmark, Italy, Great Britain, USA and several other countries.
Of the 11 monopoly crises, the most significant were the crises of 1929–1933. and 1974–1975
World economic crisis 1929–1933 lasted more than 4 years and covered the entire capitalist world, all spheres of the economy. Its effect was like an earthquake in the economic sphere. The total volume of industrial production of capitalist countries decreased by 46%, steel production fell by 62%, coal production by 31%, shipbuilding production by 83%, foreign trade turnover by 67%. The number of unemployed reached 26 million people, approximately 25% of all those employed in production. The population's income decreased by 58%. The price of securities on stock exchanges fell by 60–75%. The crisis was marked by a huge number of bankruptcies. In the USA alone, 109 thousand companies were ruined. Several thousand people died of hunger, despite the fact that there was an excess of food, which the Americans simply destroyed rather than give it to those in need for free. The crisis showed that the transition to the monopolistic stage of development of capitalism did not lead, as economic theory believed, to overcoming the contradictions and spontaneity of capitalist reproduction. Monopolies were unable to cope with the market forces. And the bourgeois state was forced to intervene in economic processes. In order to mitigate crises, monopoly capitalism began to develop into state-monopoly capitalism.
IN 1957 The first world economic crisis occurred after the war. The crisis hit the USA, Great Britain, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands and a number of other countries of the capitalist system. More than 10 million people were unemployed, and industrial production fell by 4%.
occupies a special place in the post-war economic development. The crisis gripped all capitalist countries, there was a huge decline in production and capital investment, and consumer spending population and overall volume foreign trade. The increase in unemployment was accompanied by a fall real income population and huge inflation. Prices rose rapidly even during the most acute period of the crisis, which has never happened before in the entire history of cyclical economic development. The phenomenon of rising prices with a general stagnation of production is called “stagflation” (from the words “stagnation” and “inflation”). The crisis was accompanied by structural crises in the energy sector, coal mining, agriculture, and the monetary and financial system; it disrupted the system of global relations and international division labor. Due to the rapid increase in oil prices - 4 times, and for agricultural products - 3 times, prices for products produced by enterprises have sharply increased. Under these conditions, in the USA and Canada, mining companies were provided tax benefits, and in Great Britain, France and Italy, these industries were nationalized and development was undertaken public sector.
World economic crisis 1974–1975 discovered the inconsistency of the system of state-monopoly regulation in the post-war years. State recipes – reduction discount rate, increased government spending did not produce the desired results. The regulation affected only national economies, but due to the internationalization of production, the crisis already had an impact on the entire world economy. In addition, the activities of international monopolies, which played an active role in the disorganization of the world market and the emergence of financial and currency crises, turned out to be beyond the control of states.
The next global economic crisis is called Black Monday 1987. On October 19, 1987, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 22.6%, followed by the collapse of the stock markets of Canada, Australia, and Hong Kong. This crisis, due to its colossal destructive impact and the scale of the fall, is reflected in many feature films. One of the possible reasons for the fall was the massive sale of shares, after a strong drop in the capitalization of large American companies. Another version is the deliberate influence of speculators in order to intensify the impending fall, which they knew about in advance. Evidence of the second version was not made public. There are other reasons for Black Monday, more scientific and discussed in detail.
Mexican crisis of 1994-1995 had a long history: starting from the late 1980s, the Mexican government actively attracted investments into the country, a stock exchange was opened, to which most of Mexico's state-owned companies were listed. Between 1989 and 1994 there was a large influx into Mexico foreign investment, overheating financial market led to the fact that foreign investors were afraid of the economic crisis and began to massively withdraw capital from the country. In 1995, $10 billion was withdrawn—the banking crisis began.
1997 was marked by the Asian crisis– the biggest Asian stock market crash since World War II. Like the Mexican crisis, the Asian crisis was the result of the departure of foreign investors from Southeast Asian countries and the massive withdrawal of capital. This was preceded by the devaluation of many national currencies and the growth of the balance of payments deficit of the countries of this region.
The Russian crisis occurred in 1998– the most severe economic crisis in Russian history occurred due to a huge public debt, falling oil and gas prices, and non-payment of short-term government bonds. From August 1998 to January 1999, the ruble to dollar exchange rate fell 3.5 times from 6 rubles. up to 21 rub. for a dollar.
It should be noted that at the end of XX – beginning of XXI century, the next global economic crisis was predicted for 2007-2008. If the dates came true, then the causes and consequences of the crisis were completely wrong.
History of economic crises in Russia
Most economists in our country agree that the economic crisis in Russia does not fit into conventional cycle theories. The slowdown in growth rates in the USSR began already in the second half of the 70s, because The country's leadership continued to adhere to the policy of accelerated development of material-intensive, energy-intensive and mining industries, while industrial countries set a course for the development of high-tech technologies that would significantly reduce production costs. With the policy of suppressing market relations in our country and the commitment to the monopoly of state property, the slowdown in the pace of development only intensified. The real collapse of national production occurred in 1991, after E. Gaidar used " shock therapy" .
In the early 80s. position economic system predetermined the need for its reform.
The gap from Western countries was too significant, but this did not mean the collapse of the entire economy during prolonged reforms, but it did not require the use of shock therapy. Without the use of fundamental changes in the economic system, it would have been possible to achieve a relatively small decline in production in the first half of the 90s.
This could be achieved through a policy of problem solving reforms that stimulate the development of the national market. Taking into account the possible positive effect of the development of the private sector in a stable economic environment and targeted stimulation of key industries while carrying out a reasonable economic policy there were reasons to expect a continuation of the depression with zero growth in 1995–1996. and achieving sustainable growth at an annual rate of up to 7% since 1997. But this policy was not adopted in our country, as a result of which in 1995 the consequences economic downturn, which struck our country after the collapse of the USSR, became comparable to the American Great Depression of 1929–1933.
In their views on the current situation and ways out of it, domestic economists were divided into radical liberals and gradualists.
Radical liberals are supporters of shock therapy. They advocate radical systemic and institutional economic transformation. They consider it necessary to break many government agencies command economy. The central positions of the radicals are the liberation of prices, the demand for strict regulation of the money supply, government loans and subsidies, and the elimination of the budget deficit. For radicals, financial stability is more important than anti-crisis policies. Radicals, when promoting shock therapy, relied on two considerations. The speed in carrying out reforms in the economic sphere and the baseless assertion that the total losses from shock therapy will be less than in the case of evolutionary reform of the economy. Accordingly, liberals consider the only reason for the protracted depression in Russia to be the insufficient radicalism of reforms; they are not used to blaming themselves.
According to liberals, the economic growth in the country is associated with the so-called index economic freedom. This index consists of the following indicators:
- the growth rate of the money supply is higher than the growth rate of real GDP;
- inflation rates;
- production volumes per state enterprises as a percentage of GDP;
- share of government consumption as a percentage of GDP;
- the level of taxation of imports and exports to foreign trade turnover.
The values of the index components are determined as inverse ratios of the values of the corresponding indicators for each country. Then 100% is an indicator of an absolutely liberal policy, and 0% is an absolutely anti-liberal one.
Economists in this direction believe that it is necessary to get rid of part of the country’s industrial potential, which they consider unviable. Moreover, this part varies from 1/3 to 2/3 of the total industrial fund. According to their concept, mythical stabilization will occur when the national economy gets rid of 60% of mechanical engineering, 50% of the coal and 65% of the woodworking industries, 36% of metallurgy, and GNP is reduced to 30–35% of the 1990 level. At the same time, liberals did not and do not offer options and ways for further economic growth and development, limiting themselves to the need to destroy what, in their opinion, is not working well...
Gradualists are the opposite pole in debates about further development the country's economy. That is, they stand for a slow transition to a market with the preservation of most Soviet structures. They call for following the example of China or Vietnam. At this stage, gradualists consider it necessary to have government intervention in the economy and support the public sector. They do not deny the use of economic planning policies. In fact, gradualists rely on the Keynesian concept of the development of the economic system. In contrast to radical liberals, they view a reduction in GNP as a disaster, a collapse of the entire economy. Gradualists explain the decline of the Russian economy by a total decline in production, the loss of the domestic market for most domestic goods, and a drop in the standard of living of the population.
Literature
- Shishkin A.F. Economic theory: In 2 books. Book 1. – M.: VLADOS, 2002.
- "Economic Theory (Political Economy)" ed. IN AND. Vidyapina, G.P. Zhuravleva. – M.: Publishing house of the Russian Economic Academy. – 2002.
- Economic theory. / Ed. V.D. Kamaeva. – M.: VLADOS, 2004.
- Salikhov B.V. Economic theory. – M.: Dashkov and K, 2014.
: “At best, Germany and Austria-Hungary began a reckless game, which did not go at all the way they wanted. At worst, a premeditated war of aggression and conquest began in 1914, which turned out to be far from the swift and decisive enterprise that some had imagined.” At the end of January 1914, Russia entered into a formal alliance with Serbia. During the visit to St. Petersburg of Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Pasic and the heir to the Serbian throne, Prince Alexander, Emperor Nicholas II promised to provide Serbia with “all possible military assistance” and even any “support that it needs.” The guests, in turn, took upon themselves the obligation to coordinate their military plans with the Russian General Staff.
Such an agreement was carried out in March-May 1914, and it was about the upcoming operations against Austria-Hungary. The same coordination of future military actions took place with Montenegro, with which in November 1913 Russia restored a military alliance, and in the spring of 1914 - a military convention, interrupted during the Balkan wars. The special representative of Austria-Hungary, sent to Serbia to collect evidence, former prosecutor adviser Friedrich Wiecher, telegraphed to Vienna: “To prove and even suspect the Serbian government that it was aware of the assassination attempt, or participated in its implementation, preparation and provision yell-
and the bombs were received at Kparyenaue from the arsenal of the Serbian army. The Austrians, however, were unable to accurately establish whether the weapon was received immediately before the assassination attempt. The Austrian Prime Minister Count Karl von Stürgk was convinced that the connection between the Slavs of the monarchy and the Slavs abroad could only be broken by war. It was believed that only war would put an end to the activities of Serbian agents in Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the same time, Austria-Hungary had no plans to annex Serbia and Montenegro, with the possible exception of some strategically significant border territories. The hope was rather that it would be possible to install a pro-Austrian government there. But such a calculation was utopian in any case. It was difficult to hope that such governments would be able to remain in power after the Austrian occupation. In the era of nation states, Austria-Hungary was an anachronism, but its ruling circles did not understand this. One of the goals of the war was the annexation of Russian Poland to Austria, but without a clear idea of how it would be possible to integrate such a number of Patyaks into political structure A dual monarchy, which any new conquests inevitably led to death. The Russian Empire was the same anachronism, but neither supporters of autocracy nor their revolutionary and democratic opponents understood this, with the exception of leaders of national revolutionary and democratic movements. Not surprising,
that the tsarist government did not have clear goals in the war. The main thing was considered to be the reunification of Poland under the scepter of the Russian Tsar, the capture of Constantinople and the Straits, Turkish Armenia and a number of other Turkish territories, as well as Eastern Galicia and Ugric Rus' (Transcarpathia). However, there were no specific plans for the development of new territories and their relationship with the imperial metropolis in the event of an Entente victory. If all these annexations were carried out, they would only lead to an increase in Russian Empire national movements that the imperial government could hardly cope with. Control over Constantinople and the Straits was considered a panacea for all ills in St. Petersburg. Meanwhile, in pre-war Russian journalism, the importance of the Straits for Russian exports was significantly exaggerated. Even the closure of the Straits during Turkey’s wars with its neighbors did not prevent Russian exports through the Balkan countries without significantly increasing their prices, since the vast majority of Russian goods were still transported on foreign ships. In St. Petersburg there was not even a clear position on whether the dismemberment or preservation of Austria-Hungary was more beneficial for Russia. The leadership of the Dual Monarchy was very afraid of war with Russia, despite the support of Germany. “It’s clear from everything,” wrote the Russian ambassador in Vienna N.N. on August 3, 1914. Shebeko, - that here they did not want war with us and are very afraid of it*. And the envoy in the capital of Montenegro, Cetins A.A. Gears
in a note entitled “Austria-Hungary, the Balkans and Türkiye. Tasks of War and Peace,” compiled after the Second Balkan War, proposed to completely abandon unilateral support for the adventurous course of the rulers of Serbia and, in particular, plans to annex the territories of the monarchy inhabited by the Kioslavs. Back in 1913, he predicted that “Greater Serbia” would sooner or later leave Russia. Gire, who had previously considered the main task of Russia's Balkan policy to be the fight against the monarchy, analyzing the experience of the Balkan Wars, spoke in favor of a radical change in course from confrontation with Austria-Hungary to cooperation with it and called for the coordination of the interests of both powers up to the division of spheres of influence in the Balkans. However, Gears's sober voice was not heard. The Russian envoy in Belgrade III Hartwig believed that Serbia was Russia’s reliable support on the peninsula. A.P. shared the same opinion. Izvolsky, Ambassador to Paris and former Minister of Foreign Affairs. True, neither one nor the other raised the question of dismembering Austria-Hungary. Other Entente countries imagined the war more clearly. For England, the main thing was the crushing of the naval, commercial and industrial power of Germany, the seizure of its colonies and a number of territories of the Ottoman Empire. For Austria-Hungary, the war was also unprofitable because at the beginning of the 20th century, economic growth here was the highest in Europe, and if peace was maintained for a long time, it could expect to come close in terms of development to Italy and France.
And the corresponding increase in the well-being of the population, as many in Vienna and Budapest believed, could dampen the severity of interethnic contradictions within the empire. In the years 1900-1913, the GNP of the Danube Monarchy grew by an average of 1.76% per year, while in England - by 1.00%, in France - by 1.06% and in Germany by 1.51%. The war was categorically opposed by the Prime Minister of Hungary, Count István Tisza, who believed that defeat would inevitably lead to the disintegration of Austria-Hungary, and victory would only increase the instability of the Dual Monarchy, especially in the case of new territorial increments, and would lead to its transformation into the Triune Monarchy, with the formation The Czech Kingdom, in favor of which Hungary will have to sacrifice Slovakia. He also had no doubt that he would have to fight not only with Serbia, but also, at a minimum, with Russia, and such a war would be unbearable for Austria-Hungary. If Germany came to the aid of the Danube Monarchy, the war would inevitably become a world war, with France and England coming to the side of Russia, which did not promise a favorable outcome for the Central Powers.
However, at the decisive meeting of the crown council chaired by Franz Joseph on July 19, Tisza raised his fundamental objections and agreed to present an ultimatum to Serbia. The change in position occurred after an exchange of views between Tisza and the Kaiser and the German Ambassador in Vienna, von Tschirszki, who initiated the Hungarian Prime Minister into the “blitzkrieg” plan. Tisza's Hungarian biographer Ferenc Peleszkei believes that “faith in the material, military and spiritual power of Germany was and remained the weakest point of his foreign policy concept, and with his characteristic consistency he remained faithful to it to the end.” Austria-Hungary, pushed by Germany, presented an ultimatum to Serbia, demanding not only to stop the Angibsburg propaganda, but also to allow the Austrian police into Serbian territory to investigate the assassination attempt. The Serbian authorities expressed their readiness to accept all demands, with the exception of one - the admission of a foreign position to the investigation. It should be noted that this Austrian demand was not unfounded. In Vienna, not without reason, they feared that the Serbian police would try to hide traces of the assassin’s connections with the Mlada Bosna organization, as well as the connections of this organization with a number of high-ranking Serbian military officers and politicians. Austria-Hungary broke off diplomatic relations with Belgrade and declared war on Serbia on July 28. This automatically set into motion a chain of alliances. The father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, far from any nationalism and chauvinism, wrote in early August 1914: “For the first time in 30 years I feel like an Austrian!” Russia announced general mobilization on July 29.
In the evening of the same day, the general mobilization was replaced by a partial one - only against Austria-Hungary. On July 30, under the influence of the General Staff and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Emperor Nicholas II again returned to the decree on general mobilization. The Russian military had no doubt that war was inevitable and that they would have to fight not only against Austria-Hungary, but also against Germany. On July 30, Nicholas II allowed himself to be persuaded by Sazonov, who argued that “the war had long been decided in Vienna and that in Berlin, where a word of admonition could be expected, they did not want to utter it, demanding from us capitulation to the Central Powers, which Russia would never forgive sovereign and which would cover the good name of the Russian people with shame.” Having handed over permission to mobilize to the Chief of the General Staff Yanushkevich, Sazonov added that “now you can break the phone,” i.e. there will be no cancellation of mobilization. The Baltic Fleet responded most quickly, beginning to lay mines against the surprise attack at 6.50 a.m. on July 31, 12 hours before war was declared.
On July 29, news arrived in Germany about military preparations in Belgium, especially around Liege. The German military command argued that the start of the war could not be delayed any further, since the defensive measures of the Belgian army could significantly slow down the future offensive of German troops in Belgium, which was vital for the implementation of the Schlieffsn plan. The state of military threat in Germany was declared at 13.45 on July 31st. At midnight on July 31, the German ambassador Count Pourtales handed Sazonov an ultimatum, demanding the cancellation of mobilization in Russia and giving only 12 hours for a response. On August 1, at 19:00, 6 hours after the expiration of the ultimatum, Purgales, after Sazonov’s three-time refusal to give a declaration on the cessation of “hostile preparations” against Austria and Germany, handed over a note declaring war. So, Germany demanded that the mobilization be cancelled, but Russia did not respond to this ultimatum. On August 1, German mobilization began, and in the evening of the same day, the Reich declared war on Russia. At the same time, France began general mobilization. The Germans were in a hurry to begin implementing the Schlieffen Plan. Therefore, on the evening of August 3, Germany announced gender to the French warrior on the pretext that the French samazets allegedly violated the neutrality of Belgium, and also flew over German cities and bombed the railway. On August 2, the Germans occupied Luxembourg, and on August 4, German troops invaded Belgium without declaring war. under the pretext that French divisions were preparing to enter there.
The British government demanded that Berlin answer by the end of the 4th whether it was ready to observe Belgian neutrality. German Secretary of State von Yagov stated that he could not give such commitments, since military considerations were higher than all others. On the same day, England declared war on Germany. On August 6, Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia, and a few days later it found itself in a state of war with other Entente states. In the fall of 1914, US President Woodrow Wilson publicly stated that “the disintegration of the Danube monarchy into its component parts” would serve “the good of Europe.” France mobilized all its land and naval forces on the same day, but did not declare war. A dispatch from the German ambassador, Prince Lichnowsky, was received from London in Berlin, which stated that France would not intervene in Germany's war with Russia unless Germany attacked France first. But von Moltke, the chief of the German General Staff, insisted on demanding that France return two of the most important fortresses - Tull and Verdun - for the duration of the war. Moreover, it was Germany that declared war on France on August 3, hoping for the lightning-fast implementation of the Schlieffen Plan. The French government, on the contrary, on July 30 ordered the withdrawal of troops by 10 km along the entire border with Germany - from Switzerland to Luxembourg, in order to avoid provocations and accidental shootings. Not a single unit and not a single soldier, under the threat of a court-martial, should have entered the 10-kilometer border zone. On August 3, Germany declared war on France and Belgium.
The latter was accused of refusing to allow German troops through its territory. The war against Belgium allowed Great Britain to officially declare war on Germany on 4 August. And only on August 6, Austria-Hungary declares war on Russia, and Serbia on Germany. It is interesting that having received the royal decree on mobilization, Minister of Internal Affairs N.A. Maklakov told the head of the mobilization department of the Main Directorate of the General Staff, General S.K. Dobrovolsky: “The war among us, in the depths of the people, cannot be popular, and the ideas of revolution are clearer to the people than victory over the Germans. But you can’t escape fate...” Some of the most far-sighted military and political figures foresaw that war would become the end of the Russian Empire. Russian historian V.A. Avdeev describes the mobilization as follows: “Reserves began to arrive at assembly points at the departments of district senior commanders, where teams were formed from them to replenish personnel units and form secondary ones.
The recruitment did not go smoothly everywhere. Already on the third day after mobilization began, news began to arrive from the districts about unrest that had arisen among the reserves. Reports about this were received at the War Ministry from Perm, Kurgan, Don Region, and Insar. Borisov, Orla, Kokchegava. The reserves gathered in crowds, destroyed wine warehouses, shops, in some places attacks on the police were observed, and there were casualties during the riots. The work of assembly points was also greatly hampered by the discovery of surplus reserves, especially in the Kazan and Omsk military districts. This was explained by the obsolescence and miscalculations of the mobilization schedule of 1910. Mobilization in the European part of Russia took place in a more organized manner and in deadlines. This was facilitated by verification mobilizations on the eve of the war. In general, despite a number of shortcomings, the mobilization of the regular army was successful and on time. By July 26 (August 8), on the 8th day of mobilization, operational troop transportation and a period of strategic concentration began. At this time, the formation of senior divisions continued, which, following the first ones, were to move to the front. Russia's fully armed forces completed mobilization on the 45th day. By September 3 (16), not counting the peaks of the militia, 3 million 388 thousand people were called up. In total, 4.2 million people stood under the banner.”
One hundred great secrets of the First World War / B.V. Sokolov. - M.: Veche, 2014.-416 e. - (100 great).
Over the course of almost two centuries of the formation and development of the world industrial society, crises occurred in the economies of many countries, during which there was an increasing decline in production, an accumulation of unsold goods on the market, falling prices, the collapse of the mutual settlement system, the collapse of banking systems, the ruin of industrial and trading firms, a sharp rise in unemployment.
In the specialized literature, the economic crisis is characterized as an imbalance between supply and demand for goods and services.
Crises accompany the entire history of human society. At first they manifested themselves as crises of underproduction of agricultural products, and from the middle of the 19th century - as an imbalance between industrial production and effective demand.
Until the 20th century, economic crises were limited to one, two or three countries, then they began to acquire an international character. Despite the fact that in recent decades the world community has created mechanisms to prevent global crises (strengthening government regulation economic processes, creation of international financial organizations, monitoring, etc.), as the history of world economic cataclysms testifies, it is not possible to accurately predict, much less avoid them. In Eurasia and America, over the course of almost two centuries, economic crises occurred about 20 times.
First world economic crisis, which dealt a blow to the national economy and social life of the USA, Germany, England and France at the same time, occurred in 1857. The crisis began in the USA. The reason was massive bankruptcies railway companies and a stock market crash. The collapse of the stock market provoked a crisis in the American banking system. That same year, the crisis spread to England and then to the whole of Europe. A wave of stock market unrest even swept across Latin America. During the crisis, iron production in the United States decreased by 20%, cotton consumption by 27%. In the UK, shipbuilding was hit hardest, with output falling by 26%. In Germany, cast iron consumption has decreased by 25%; in France - 13% increase in iron smelting and the same amount in cotton consumption; in Russia, iron smelting fell by 17%, production of cotton fabrics - by 14%.
The next global economic crisis began in 1873 from Austria and Germany. The crisis of 1873 is considered a major international financial crisis. The prerequisite for the crisis was a credit boom in Latin America, fueled from England, and a speculative boom in the real estate market in Germany and Austria. The Austro-German boom ended with a stock market crash in Vienna in May. Stock markets in Zurich and Amsterdam also fell. In the United States, a banking panic began after a strong fall in shares on the New York Stock Exchange and the bankruptcy of the main financier and president of the United Pacific railway Jay Cook. The crisis spread from Germany to America due to the refusal of German banks to roll over loans. As the American and European economies fell into recession (decline in production), Latin American exports fell sharply, leading to a drop in income state budgets. It was the longest crisis in the history of capitalism: it ended in 1878.
In 1914 There was an international financial crisis caused by the outbreak of the First World War. The reason is the total sale of securities of foreign issuers by the governments of the USA, Great Britain, France and Germany to finance military operations. This crisis, unlike others, did not spread from the center to the periphery, but began almost simultaneously in several countries after the warring parties began to liquidate foreign assets. This led to a collapse in all markets, both commodity and money. Banking panics in the US, UK and some other countries were mitigated by timely interventions by central banks.
The next global economic crisis associated with post-war deflation (increasing purchasing power national currency) and recession (decline in production) occurred in 1920-1922. The phenomenon was associated with banking and currency crises in Denmark, Italy, Finland, Holland, Norway, the USA and Great Britain.
1929-1933 - the time of the Great Depression
On October 24, 1929 (Black Thursday), stocks fell sharply on the New York Stock Exchange, marking the beginning of the largest economic crisis in the history of the world. The price of securities fell by 60-70%, fell sharply business activity, the gold standard for the world's major currencies was abolished. After World War I, the US economy developed dynamically, millions of shareholders increased their capital, and consumer demand grew rapidly. And everything collapsed overnight. The most solid stocks: the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, the General Electric Company and the General Motor Company - lost up to two hundred points during the week. By the end of the month, shareholders had lost over $15 billion. By the end of 1929, the fall in securities prices reached a fantastic amount of 40 billion dollars. Firms and factories closed, banks burst, millions of unemployed people wandered around in search of work. The crisis raged until 1933, and its consequences were felt until the end of the 30s.
Industrial production during this crisis decreased in the USA by 46%, in the UK by 24%, in Germany by 41%, and in France by 32%. Share prices of industrial companies fell in the US by 87%, in the UK by 48%, in Germany by 64%, and in France by 60%. Unemployment has reached colossal proportions. According to official data, in 1933 at 32 developed countries There were 30 million unemployed, including 14 million in the USA.
The first post-war global economic crisis began at the end of 1957 and continued until mid-1958. It covered the USA, Great Britain, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands and some other capitalist countries. Industrial production in developed capitalist countries decreased by 4%. The army of unemployed people has reached almost 10 million people.
Economic crisis that began in the United States at the end of 1973 in terms of the breadth of countries covered, duration, depth and destructive power, it significantly surpassed the global economic crisis of 1957-1958 and, in a number of characteristics, came close to the crisis of 1929-1933. During the crisis, industrial production in the USA decreased by 13%, in Japan by 20%, in Germany by 22%, in Great Britain by 10%, in France by 13%, in Italy by 14%. In just one year - from December 1973 to December 1974 - stock prices fell in the USA by 33%, in Japan by 17%, in Germany by 10%, in Great Britain by 56%, in France by 33%, in Italy by 28%. The number of bankruptcies in 1974 compared to 1973 increased in the USA by 6%, in Japan by 42%, in Germany by 40%, in Great Britain by 47%, in France by 27%. By mid-1975, the number of completely unemployed in developed capitalist countries reached 15 million people. In addition, more than 10 million were transferred to part-time work or temporarily laid off from their enterprises. There has been a fall in real incomes of working people everywhere.
The first energy crisis also occurred in 1973, which began with OPEC member countries reducing oil production. Thus, black gold miners tried to raise the price of oil on the world market. On October 16, 1973, the price of a barrel of oil rose by 67% - from $3 to $5. In 1974, the price of oil reached $12.
Black Monday 1987. October 19, 1987 American stock index The Dow Jones Industrial fell 22.6%. Following the American market, the markets of Australia, Canada, and Hong Kong collapsed. Possible cause of the crisis: the outflow of investors from the markets after a strong decline in the capitalization of several large companies.
The Mexican crisis occurred in 1994-1995
In the late 1980s, the Mexican government pursued a policy to attract investment into the country. In particular, officials opened stock exchange, brought the majority of Mexican state-owned companies to the site. Between 1989 and 1994, a flood of foreign capital poured into Mexico. The first manifestation of the crisis was capital flight from Mexico: foreigners began to fear the economic crisis in the country. In 1995, $10 billion was withdrawn from the country. A crisis in the banking system began.
In 1997 - Asian crisis
The biggest fall in the Asian stock market since World War II. The crisis is a consequence of the withdrawal of foreign investors from Southeast Asian countries. The reason is the devaluation of the national currencies of the region and high level balance of payments deficit in Southeast Asian countries. According to economists, the Asian crisis reduced world GDP by $2 trillion.
In 1998 - Russian crisis
One of the most severe economic crises in Russian history. Reasons for default: huge state debt Russia, low world prices for raw materials (Russia is a major supplier of oil and gas to the world market) and a pyramid of government short-term bonds, which the Russian government was unable to pay on time. The ruble exchange rate against the dollar in August 1998 - January 1999 fell 3 times - from 6 rubles. per dollar up to 21 rubles. for a dollar.
Experts predicted the beginning of the next powerful economic crisis by 2007–2008. Ruin predicted in America oil markets, in Eurasia there is a complete defeat of the dollar.
The material was prepared based on information from RIA Novosti and open sources