no, and that means subsidiary banks, uh, this problem is aggravated, and we see that here and including the growth of profits and so on. on the one hand, this is good and there is indeed capital, but on the other hand, this may also be a sign of reduced competition, which is why we have such a big challenge here. and here i fully agree. here we are grateful to the bank of russia for the fact that the bank of russia is engaged in hmm structural transformation. we are working together and an example of taxa, a very good example. there is a lot more here and there that can be to do, but at the same time it is necessary to think and develop some systems, because it is called on top of the banking system. yes , some alternative, and mechanisms including digital financial assets. we have a bond market, involving the funds of the population in some kind of investment activity, taking into account all the restrictions, of course, but stability in the first place, but the minister of economic development should, the population shuddered, but that’s not the question . we must give people choice. we do not talk about what it means we

make decisions for them, but people should have a choice and they should understand the risks. thank god we have the term qualified investors. eh, the bank of russia has done a lot of preparatory work for this, and it's the players that we'll need in the near future. precisely how, as an opportunity to choose, i will emphasize. it is clear you can quite a small remark. yes, of course, you can do everything. eh, maxim gennadievich said that one should not underestimate. roller, yes state, of course, it is not necessary, but we do not have such a risk. we have a risk of underestimating the rudders, honestly business, and it seemed to me, therefore, we need to be careful about this, right? here we seem to be saying everything correctly, you will be the main one. here's the next part of this part don't steal in your time. come on, please, i'm just warning you. i say the right words to uh actions. so why does it work

the old fashioned way? how is the problem solved? we want to create a technological one. that, as in the heads of all of us, it means that we must give budget money, you know. and now we are giving budgetary money to create production capacities. well, we buy machines, yes , then labor forces from the budget. so, the company starts working and we buy. she herself has products for budget money. no. well, you know, we pay twice, unfortunately, we have this product, because it cannot be used. unfortunately we have such a paradigm. here we all have. by the way, there is one she still of the soviet era sitting in their heads. wait. i want to say the following now, so we need to change this one you understand the logic, the state should

hand over demand. ah, machine tools do and e enterprises, well, business is correct, and then there will be less. uh, the share of the state in the economy. why does it swell, a state-owned company is everywhere, but we give money to these state-owned companies. they create. uh, so business gets in the way of commercial business. well, because i understand correctly that when you come up with the next budget of the state duma, i can remind you of these words, when you present this section of the subsidy and reduce, that's it. what do you understand well? that there are these words, too, let me remind you. eh, maxim slavich, what will you say, well, i think it's because of what was said just now, but in fact, here is the most important thing that the leaders said, and the change that actually took place in the policy of the central bank over the past few years, here it is. uh, as i quote yes, the departure from such a strict principle

of neutrality of the banking system to participation we argued about this a few years ago, but it seems to me that now this is just such an optimal balance in this part, and this is such a change in the policy of the central bank in this part - this is a few tens of percent points in addition to economic growth per year. thanks, uh colleagues. i've got a big inkblot right here , so i don't know, because the ones they gave me. i can't read. here, therefore, e will have to do a little on my own. here , maybe i'm wrong. well, anton is here directly to you, fuck all the situations when like we have in the background. i think that no one will argue with this against the backdrop of declining income. we have an inevitability, that is, we need to increase costs, so

the next question. maybe, since i repeat, in short, it is your income that is declining. and you know, i actually have a constant salary, but do you need a certificate on how budget revenues are being reduced? i can send you the ministry of finance, uh, it presents it to me every month, maybe they just don't send it to the presidential administration. then i can make up for it, we could already look, but look deeper, well, you're probably not talking about anything. you can speak. so i was warned in advance not to hand over this issue. so. uh, that's why i would like to start, uh, from the lines to igor guberman. such a quatrain, which just reminds us, is that we have four main speakers on the panel for our high aspirations for our spiritual nuances. the foggy spirit of yearning is very roughly affected by finances. here, uh, well, so here's a question for you. here finances roughly influence, where to get

money in such a situation and some kind of be budgetary policy, the jet started talking about it. uh, just uh, i'd love to hear it. that's because without a budget policy, the definition of where we get the money, probably, all these conversations have become all theoretical. what should be the budget policy? a balanced budget policy should be, because well, look everyone wants to spend. yes and now more money is all about growing to reduce, not always. it's not always. this is true. if you look at the macro. yes, as it were, we all refer to you today, a whole panel. is right because that you are on parallel words. speak see now look now when we're on. here

we see the elements of warming up the economy to increase such a budgetary incentive to increase budgetary spending in conditions when revenues are coming in, they are not so critical there is nothing. in fact, we honestly plan to enter the income plan for oil and gas as a whole. they are oil and gas, but increase the increase in this deficit, like oil. leave the fire when the economy grows. we will also provide budget incentives. uh, means extra economy. well, why is this inflation rate? that's what we talked about. i cannot allow this. this is the first thing the ministry of finance is guided by . the ministry of finance is guided by its own. eh, how bologna. here, the second. uh, you need expenses. but we need to now, if we are talking about transformation, then it is necessary, probably, that the terms budgets also mean

to apply, because we have a lot of things to transform. express yourself in terms of expenses. you see, i'm already starting from what i've already said, how we finance , support industry, and create the public sector. understand through budget, but do not create. eh, and just here are the incentives simply from the state, which should stimulate the private sector, just to create these productions. that's why we have a lot of happy ones that have not been reviewed for 100 years, you know, they are already sitting in their heads that this is not a problem of anything now. eh, that means there is no indestructible, and that's it. this needs to be revisited. this is a great resource. this is very difficult to do. seriously, this is very difficult to do, but it needs to be approached. it must take time. now just say in terms of income. uh. well, you know, here we are, uh, sort of going, and

have already taken steps further this year. we will probably move in this direction. that is , this is the fair direction of the natural tape. yes, we, uh, have now made a decision on a more equitable account of the ndpi for oil. yes, because our oilmen offered us big discounts, it turns out that this is not always the case, so, from the point of view of finances, when you say oilman, this is what this movement of your hands means. it's the one who knows will understand. yes, that means, from the point of view. uh, taxation you said, natural rent and the economic ring. so this year we talked with business. yes , this is what business means, it will help from the point of view of hmm its contribution, well, in the general situation, we also

adopted a tax on excess profits. e on the government. now we will bring it to you with business business asked. the first experiment said, i understand, yes, they granted the request of the business. well, you can say so, here we are talking about, well, in excess of income. it's like economic rent. yes further we will also move in this direction, so of course, uh, that means budget policy budget policy so that it is, as maxim genovich said, that we need to ensure macro, budgetary stability, uh, policy is one of the most important elements of ensuring macro stability. and here, the main thing is not overdone. can you just do it then? so i just said, actually ask maksimovich ask a question. well, if i may, here, if i may, i would just like a little bit, because there arose you disputes

about how much money is there and so on, to do not argue, maybe i'm just reading the documents of the ministry of finance incorrectly, but i've been looking, what do we say. the decrease in the liquid part of the national welfare fund over the past six months, open data, so i can safely say 33.9% as the situation develops, the sample can reach 5.5-6 trillion there. eh, a possible option anton, i 'm talking about the fact that there are risks, god forbid, if this does not happen. and if that happens, then this means by the end of the year those 2.6 trillion fnb that are budgeted for the balance, as a result, they simply will not disappear, that is, through reserves. then where to get money from borrowing the reserve. but rivers rightly spoke about this at the same

time that if we borrow banks from the state, banks stop lending to save, because it is more profitable to lend to the state without risks than to lend to the economy. and we, speaking of raising taxes , are also probably a possible option to discuss. did you say that we will continue this politics. but here i just honestly hope that no one is considering the option of inflation. like uh option like option? uh, like replenishment of budget revenues, because inflation is a tax on the poor. this is what we understand everything, therefore, just here is the maximum. sorry maybe a happy question first. uh , they told me about the budget policy separately, excuse me, but the central bank has enough tools for the chimizan grommet. in general, in this design that we are talking about now, i have enough tools to curb inflation. well, i think in our country yes, in the world, no one there is no doubt that our central bank

will certainly cope with inflation, as it did in 1915. as it did last year, the reputation of our central bank here is impeccable, but also in terms of instruments. it is clear that this is not a tricky business here. yes twitched. an early stop was just like the economy and controls inflation, therefore, it seems to me that from the point of view of inflation, even more questions are not for the central bank. these are more questions. uh government. will the government manage with the development of proposals? in the economy in such a way as to maintain economic growth and prevent the acceleration of inflation, which anton germanovich just spoke about, and in order not to give the central bank a reason to pull, stop the tap. this, it seems to me, is the most important issue in economic policy for the next 12 months. but remember, the hero of one soviet film claimed that running in bags is a very interesting sport, because it’s not the one who runs faster who wins who wins, but here he runs faster in bags, here no feeling. uh, what are we really, uh

, hanging a certain amount of gila, then i say to the central bank, even up to now, i’ve managed, so i’ll cope, uh, there’s no such feeling. well, the weight will not be on us, but on the economy, because if the budget is unbalanced and, uh, there will be doubts that the budget will be balanced in some long term, it will really lead , on the one hand, to the fact that we will have to reduce lending, uh market, that is, a larger amount of funds will be e, distributed through the budget. they are a private business to have on their own funding. and secondly, this will lead to an increase in long-term rates, even if short-term rates are not very high there, we will not be able to reduce low long-term rates only when inflation is low and inflation expectations are low. and, of course, budget sustainability is a key factor, and i'm anton heroic here. i agree that in order to ensure this, we need hard work on

prioritizing expenses. we cannot. everything and everything about this. excuse me please, in this connections. so we listened very carefully. and so i think that everyone is ready to subscribe to what antonnovich said. but from the point of view of your answer to the first question. and we in the global economy , global problems. that's how, from your point of view, our budgetary policy. she has to transform somehow. something else, maybe some other additional tasks. well, when i said at the beginning that we should effectively develop our own market and develop. this also applied to budgetary policy. yes over i have now said to many that there is something that we have not revised for years, what should be abandoned, it is really time to do it. and here the ministry of finance of the ministry of economy has a big role to play. these are the two departments that owe this list. uh , what is ineffective does not help,

structural transformation and redundancy, on the contrary. there is somewhere to eat competition from this, so that's when they say that the government should e work with the proposal. including through efficiency budget spending changes in the structure of budget spending is indisputable. thank you. then you have a question. tell me, maybe i just don't remember, i don't know that i'm closely following the work of the government. here we have uh, uh, the number of some priorities is constantly growing. from uh where they look is a priority. but you, as the minister of economic development, can now recall at least one industry, well, or something that would be said that it is not a priority. i'm only talking about this in terms of how realistic this is. an abbreviation about the need that everyone is talking about. well at implementation all the same will

happen. it’s just that we have two paths, there is more, maybe, but the direct and hard path, uh, which we usually don’t go, yes, it’s really to decide on those programs that need to be closed, but there is a way to redistribute the money. well, like that, or you want to suffer. yes, i would like to learn. here, when we just cut everything and then add it to the priorities, that is, the whole mode is proportional, then and then the other is prioritization. just a few different processes, as it were, yes. well, uh with different effects, which one do we go with? well , i think that there will be some kind of hybrid, after all , we, i think the situation, so to speak. e competition for resources is toughening, therefore , it will have to be from something after all. recognize to refuse or at least not to renew some programs. we will now have a discussion of priorities there, and of the next next cycle. i think that this choice will have to be made. here on the one hand, but on the other hand. we are here too, so that this one here's the discussion mr. elvirsky anton means, yes, that, on the one hand, budgetary policy

should be balanced on the other hand , monetary policy. there should be a neutral devil, as usual in the details, because when we take out a loan, for example, and add it to the budget deficit, we say this is a problem. the problem is actually a little less , because many loans are taken for budget expenditures for the future, and we have built such a system of budget expenditures that write-offs of money with shields, infinity, and what we all see as an expense. this does not mean the entry of money into the economy, because a large system of treasury banking support, support, and so on, is built here, so our constant dialogue is very important here, which is happening inside and what we will see today, but everyone simplifies the situation a little, but inside, uh, understandable the discussion is going on, uh, with a much greater number of nuances, and it seems to me that this is what makes our monetary policy in the aggregate, as it were, much more satisfying the needs of the economy, but i emphasize once again, so that there is no feeling that everything depends only on the dkp, which means the budget. today we speak the words structural

transformation, but we may not discuss it enough, because there is a wide range of issues, the institutional labor market, and so on and so forth. well, we also deal with them and there is no need to deal with them further and deeper. and in principle, this determines that there is a target growth trajectory, from which vira reprimands neutrality from bread. means monetary policy. that's why, probably, this is the basis and plus, of course, the role private investment here, no matter how we discuss the role of the state, only private investment will pull out our economy. may i have heard? didn't hear that. i saw how, er, they reacted. perhaps i would like to ask maksimovich a question first. here, so that we can get back a little. uh, questions, where does the money come from and so on? is he somehow a little bit in the air of the story, huh? remember, this is a well-known story, e you quit drinking cognac in the morning, answer yes or no, and we

will raise taxes on business. as you can see yes or no, the question is why is the question. in general , the minister of economy, as it were, for the balance we have anton germanovich. from our point of view, stability is principled. and finally, here is the readiness to give an answer to an older comrade. this is for ours. this is what ensures the flexibility of our economy, by the way, keep in mind. yes, it's still yes or no. i like to do things with deputies, as it were, yes, with whom and a, with whom it’s not always not always possible to start right away with the main thing. what time will end, new ones will come with them do. everything is fine. finish you want to say yes or no just that you asked to say yes or no. this means that the question of the stability of the tax policy is in the light, including these changes that have taken place recently. this is probably the key issue in general encouraging private

investment. here, so that now you love any increase in the tax burden on business. it is now making obvious investments. it will be it will be a direct direct deduction from economic growth. it's all obvious. i'm still talking. in short, i wanted say that let's because, as it were, i understand that this is a matter of government decisions. well, as silonov says, here, but uh, here uh, i wanted to hear exactly the expert's opinion on the solution to this. i understand that this is my expert opinion. now you said, if possible, here, well, a very short one. there is very little time left, you wanted to respond, and i wanted to respond here, that here is the need to prioritize budget expenditures. in my opinion. the worst case is to cut everything proportionally. we won’t reach anywhere, the result will be money spent, and it seems to me that this is at least the most painless, it seems that they did n’t offend anyone, but this is the worst from an economic point of view, then as i think it’s all tv viewers, if they are watching us,

they saw how you shuddered at these words this, as if the reaction was understandable. uh, can time want about excess business taxes. here is the answer here, you know what the correct one is counterproductive, that is, it will not work. is it an expert position or is it a decision? then you need to cut costs, you understand, but you need to decide, either for one or the other happens budgetary spending now in the macroeconomic policy. we have this now good point very yes, low unemployment, low inflation, but there is an infectious risk ahead. here, i agree with the position of the central bank, but in this regard, the entire macroeconomic policy should be built in such a way that we come in a balanced way for the next year and subsequent periods of time. and that the broadcast remained close to the target of 4%, this one is the main task and is working on proposals so that the economy shows real rates growth, good real growth and in this design is my belief that raising

taxes on business. it's just counterproductive, it won't work. we will lose more income from a slowdown in the economy than hypothetically gaining a tax increase, so i'm 100% sure. thanks anton, i don’t ask yet, although i wanted to shift the decision. for example, we cut off colleagues, very little time left. although to be honest, i really wanted to, for example, discuss how we can secure long-term investments. let's agree, that we will talk about this at the next st. petersburg forum. uh, this is uh, at the same time we will discuss how we managed to do this or not , here we will discuss a plan for the future, but you know , there are several questions that are very important. after all, you just talked about what the transformation of the economy should be like in essence, what economic policy should be, and literally. well there place didn't pass, as one very famous banks one of the largest banks in the country told us to solve economic problems. what was needed

was privatization. there was such a colleague, i understand now you can pretend that he did not say there and so on. here are the governors . they had all their moves recorded like this. i noticed i don’t say my last name, why i don’t say my last name simply because in response to this is the head of the investigative committee. he also came up with his own recipe for the development of the economy , he was looking for, we need nationalization. now, if you and i were on the run now, i would ask who to bet on. here, uh, well, i don’t want to be an extremist, so a short question to each of you. and what point of view is closer to you, well let's start with you maxim ivanovich well, well, well, well, well, this is life. well, look, it seems to me that privatization should be considered from the point of view of just those structural structural changes, because we see what the state really has, but quite

a lot of assets that are not properly used. here's the one. just if we hmm give businesses the opportunity to invest there, they create the very new proposal that maxim was just talking about, therefore, in terms of accelerating growth and e opportunities for investment. yes, in terms of fiscal issues. but, probably, here to overestimate the current situation, what is very difficult to understand that i have already gutted you in taxes. is it necessary to raise taxes, but still we understand that privatization is nationalization. it's a movement in exactly opposite directions. i just wanted to hear about how good it is to bring privatization, what can it give? i would just like to hear the views of the ministers of economic development. in which of these directions will we move? i think we today we are discussing for an hour and a half about the need to move towards private investment in a different way. no, therefore the term

nationalization. well, in general, probably, from a different agenda, help her initialize from a different agenda. uh, the legal result is the opportunity to ask, you have the same now uh? yes, of course, i think that, of course , we need to privatize, and we have something to privatize without damage, there is a strategic interest, because sometimes they say that we shouldn’t privatize, because we don’t have any strategic goals completed. we have, uh, the opportunity to do this and the questions. it's not just income budget. this is not the first task. and the question is, really the development of a private initiative of private business. thank you, you antagonize, i would answer like this, that i graduated from a financial institute, so they taught us . which one will win let's see, by the way, antonovich

is responsible for privatization in our government. that is, the attempt to run into a lawyer was a success, in fact, i believe absolutely fair in general believe that the lawyers in the country that the chairman of the state duma budget committee is a lawyer. i believe that this is an absolutely exhaustive assessment of the quality of economists in our country. and here is a thank you . e maksimovich, you, can i ask a question or better? go ahead, please, i 'll answer it. thanks e. hmm, closer from these two positions is andrei leontyevich kostin, who spoke about privatization, but not in the form of large-scale privatizations, but exactly in that the form, which was mentioned as a way out of the assets used by the states inefficiently. for the benefit of the state, we will not succeed from what was said to the previous question, that we first

test ourselves, then we give to someone, that we first privatize, and then nationalize. i'm in terms of the issue that we weren't able to discuss how to secure long-term investment. i mean. well, uh, something to inspire investors. we can say more. thank you very much thank you colleagues. in fact, there is no time at all. but there is one question that i think is very important. here we are last year finishing our panel. eh, i asked each of you then to set yourself china for a year until the next forum. here, notice. uh, i'm not even suggesting you bet there next year. you can for a longer period and so on. well, after all, the next year of the next forms is an opportunity, well, to meet here and discuss how it is being carried out. that turned out to be what we say, eh? maxim remembers

exactly what he said here, that is, he read the transcript, prudent the foresight of the minister of economic development. oh, how important, really remembers, this story is silent. well, uh. uh, if i may, let's then you already said what's done. but your next year is now the minister of economic development. well, i think also what concerns now, honest investment growth is often private investment launching new tools for this, because in the long run supply growth is now directly related to growth. so good, let's jump over elviral then. at the same time, let's move on to anna germok first. well, yamych, here, uh, you didn’t report on kpi at all, but last year, but i’ll remind you now, because china, which the minister of finance established for himself, was actually the best, at least according to the internet.

he said that his task is to make the optimist about this room become bigger in a year. here are the faces. i see that there are more of them, therefore, we will assume that everything has been completed. she next year. what task i already spoke. so e prokidyvali that optimist it became more, because the pessimist left yes, and now, probably, it is worth going and questions about issuing a passport for visas, there and so on to improve work, as well, because there are not enough chips for passports. you mean it, it's all business, nothing else, we have a lot of electronics. eh? in our people can, who can be picked up, here uh, so uh, then, uh, china to make the pessimist come back. this is cool, actually. uh, apparently, the treasury will be specially

appointed. yes no really.