The article expands the controversy on whether the country has a strategy for economic growth and a policy of smoothing inequalities. It is concluded that a strategy has been adopted that welcomes the enrichment of individuals and, at the same time, the growth of poverty; impoverishment of some layers of the population; the growth of social stratification; the formation of a class society; slowing down the development of local self-government, small and medium-sized enterprises. The question is raised about how society can resist the activities of monopolies that suppress market competition in the country and, consequently, generate economic (income) and social (access to benefits and chances) inequality through the “power-property” mechanism. Options are considered for stimulating economic growth and reducing inequalities through the mechanisms of market supply and demand, the formula “trickle up and trickle down” (capital seepage into society "from below" and “from above”). The antimonopoly elements of the programs are given – G. Gref's socio-economic, G. Yavlinsky's socio-legal, A. Tikhonov's socio-political, A. Akhiezer's socio-cultural, R. Grinberg-A. Rubinshtein aimed at limiting the activity of "power-property". Conclusion: the difficulty of the restriction policy lies in the fact that it is impossible to do without “power-property” in the construction of infrastructure, maintenance of the army, space exploration, the Arctic, supplying cities with water, heat, etc., so scientists talk about smoothing inequalities, not for their complete elimination. It is in this gap between “should” and “should not” that the merging of corrupt government officials and big business is born. Nevertheless, scientists should not succumb to the temptation and not be carried away by leftist slogans “privatize everything” or “nationalize everything”, demanding to build an egalitarian society without monopolies and inequalities.
The article expands the controversy on whether the country has a strategy for economic growth and a policy of smoothing inequalities. It is concluded that a strategy has been adopted that welcomes the enrichment of individuals and, at the same time, the growth of poverty; impoverishment of some layers of the population; the growth of social stratification; the formation of a class society; slowing down the development of local self-government, small and medium-sized enterprises. The question is raised about how society can resist the activities of monopolies that suppress market competition in the country and, consequently, generate economic (income) and social (access to benefits and chances) inequality through the “power-property” mechanism. Options are considered for stimulating economic growth and reducing inequalities through the mechanisms of market supply and demand, the formula “trickle up and trickle down” (capital seepage into society "from below" and “from above”). The antimonopoly elements of the programs are given – G. Gref's socio-economic, G. Yavlinsky's socio-legal, A. Tikhonov's socio-political, A. Akhiezer's socio-cultural, R. Grinberg-A. Rubinshtein aimed at limiting the activity of "power-property". Conclusion: the difficulty of the restriction policy lies in the fact that it is impossible to do without “power-property” in the construction of infrastructure, maintenance of the army, space exploration, the Arctic, supplying cities with water, heat, etc., so scientists talk about smoothing inequalities, not for their complete elimination. It is in this gap between “should” and “should not” that the merging of corrupt government officials and big business is born. Nevertheless, scientists should not succumb to the temptation and not be carried away by leftist slogans “privatize everything” or “nationalize everything”, demanding to build an egalitarian society without monopolies and inequalities.