Economic

Introduction. It is particularly interesting to study the achievements of outstanding personalities on the world scale, those who made a signifi cant contribution to economic science, played a crucial role in the international history of politics and economic activity, laid the prerequisites for the formation of original schools of economic thought, which were named after their founders. Such personalities were John Maynard Keynes and Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov-Lenin. Methods and concepts. The term “dialogue”, meaning a conversation, an exchange of statements in spoken and written speech, precisely characterizes the format of correspondence communication between J. M. Keynes and V. I. Lenin. Having no personal acquaintance with each other, no mutual sympathies, the interlocutors addressed each other in publications and public speeches, setting out and commenting on the words and thoughts, deeds and actions, moral values, social and political ideals shared by the vis-a-vis. The dialogue between the two prominent persons dealt with the problems of developing and implementing a new economic policy in the international sphere and in certain countries. Analysis and interpretation. The immediate reason for the beginning of the dialogue was the publication of J. M. Keynes’ book “Economic Consequences of Peace” in December 1919, which repeatedly mentioned the name of V. I. Lenin. The dialogue of J. M. Keynes and V. I. Lenin took place not only in the format of publicly addressing each other, indicating the name of the interlocutor, but also in a hidden form of reminiscence – memories of what was said and heard, written and perceived by the counterpart. Results. The communication between J. M. Keynes and V. I. Lenin was maintained in the “Ab voce, ad rem” mode – from words to deeds. Serious thoughts expressed by the interlocutors found their real embodiment.

In different historical periods and in different countries the model of the state entrepreneurship has special, unique features, its own forms and methods of influence on the macroeconomic dynamics and socio-economic development. The study of the specific Russian model of the state entrepreneurship is necessary to implement a successful economic policy of the government in our country. Theoretical analysis. In macroeconomic models the system of the national economy is determined by three key aggregate economic entities (sectors of the economy): households, businesses and government. The activity of the state, involving the use of public property and its sources of replenishment, aimed at increasing the circulation of controlled economic resources, has business orientation. A model of state entrepreneurship is determined by the national specificity of the country: historical conditions of development, a set of organizational forms, legal, cultural, religious norms, ideological, cultural traditions, and geographic location. Conclusion. The interrelation of economic and administrative activity of the state, hierarchical and financial supremacy of the state apparatus in the system of economic relations, the crucial importance of the budget in the economic life of the country is confirmed by the analysis of the historical experience of Russia.

Interest in major cycles concept by N. D. Kondratyev has been lately linked with its applied usage for analysis and evaluation of the perspectives of economy’s crisis state of leading countries and world economy. Development of fundamental economic theory and formation of renewed educational courses by means of theoretical and methodological modeling can be carried out within the framework of major cycles paradigm by N. D. Kondratyev. Research methods. The article presents the theoretical and methodological modeling potential based on the major cycles concept. The study uncovers the interconnection between model factors: technological, social and demographic, ecological, capital accumulation, dynamics of the monetary conversion sphere, outlet market development, correlation of forces between different countries on the world market, actions of social groups inside separate states. Results. Major cycles define the dynamics of development of the society’s economic development, which can be viewed as a special economic paradigm, which is a system of economic knowledge and practical skills, behavior samples, stimuli and regulators of reproduction, organizational forms, legal, cultural, religious norms, and ideological settings. There is a close interconnection between dynamics of country economy’s conjuncture and state enterprise. The article shows the possibility of theoretical and methodological modelling of spatio-temporal design and economy’s long wave oscillations within the framework of the world system analysis. Conclusion. Interchange of periods of long-term falls and rises in the Russian economy coincided with the change of state enterprise practice. Repetition of events shows the consistency of transition from one economic paradigm to another under conditions of revolutionary breakage of all social norms.

Природно-ресурсный капитал (ПРК), создаваемый экологической подсистемой эколого-экономической системы (ЭЭС), является неотчуждаемым от индивида как базового субъекта эколого-экономических отношений, он не может быть объектом частного присвоения. Следовательно, все попытки свести эколого-экономические отношения к чисто рыночным путем искусственного навязывания господства института рынка в институциональной среде ЭЭС могут только увеличить число институциональных ловушек, называемых провалами рынка. Теоретический анализ. В процессе институционализации эколого-экономической системы становление института рынка природных ресурсов является одной из тех областей, где конструктивную роль мог бы сыграть институт индикативного планирования в виде участия государства в непрерывной программе по сбору и распространению информации, связанной с ожидаемыми изменениями в технологиях, запасах ресурсов и спросе. Результаты исследования. Комплексный характер оценки природных благ проявляется в сопряженном учете всех преимуществ и эффектов (производственных, природоохранных, рекреационных), полученных при использовании запасов целевым образом, а также комплексном территориальном подходе к оценке природных ресурсов как сочетания различных угодий. Выводы. Cформулировано основное правило ценообразования для воспроизводства экологического капитала – цена экологического спроса, установленная обществом, должна быть не ниже цены экологического предложения. Только в этом случае у природопользователей сохранится стимул к сохранению природных ресурсов и восстановлению экосистем.