Successful people must reproduce. Why do people breed? Why do you need to continue the race? Why does everyone want this so much? These should not breed

ANTONINA SAMSONOVA: Hello, you are watching and listening to the program "The Day After Tomorrow". Watch on RTVI TV and listen to Echo of Moscow radio. My name is Tonya Samsonova, and with me is my colleague, the host of this program, Sergei Guriev, rector of the Russian School of Economics. Hello Sergey.

SERGEY GURIEV: Good evening.

A. SAMSONOVA: Today we are talking about “Successful people should multiply”. Today is Children's Day, after all. Maxim Mironov, professor at the business school of the Epresa Institute (Madrid), hello, Maxim.

MAXIM MIRONOV: Hello.

A. SAMSONOVA: Maxim, are you a successful person?

M. MIRONOV: Yes.

A. SAMSONOVA: Is the topic of reproduction and the topic of kindergartens, which we will discuss today, seem to you the most important?

M. MIRONOV: Yes.

A. SAMSONOVA: And this is what you devote your activity to?

M. MIRONOV: Yes.

S. GURIEV: No, well, reproduction is one issue. Another question is kindergartens. Those. You think that kindergartens are the most important topic for the development of Russia.

M. MIRONOV: Yes, I believe that this is one of the most important topics, because in the end, any development depends on people. And this is a global understanding not only in Russia and in the world. And if we want not only to pump oil and gas, which may still run out during our lifetime, then we need to do so that there are talented people who will move the economy further.

A. SAMSONOVA: Do you have children, Maxim?

M. MIRONOV: Yes.

A. SAMSONOVA: There is a problem with kindergartens in Russia, and, nevertheless, you have a child. You somehow do not correspond to the thesis that you declare.

M. MIRONOV: Let's just say there are two parts. Firstly, I didn't have a child in Russia, let's say. One of the reasons is precisely because it is very inconvenient to have children in Russia. It is precisely this topic, the difficulties that are associated with the birth of a child, that made me think, generally speaking, what needs to be done so that there are more children in Russia, including.

A. SAMSONOVA: Maxim, how complicated it is with you. But the correspondent of Forbes magazine, our colleagues and partners in the program, the Russian version of Forbes magazine Anna Sokolova figured out your biography, now she will tell our listeners and our viewers about it.

DOSSIER FOR PERSONS OF THE 21ST CENTURY

ANNA Sokolova: Maxim Mironov, 30 years old, was born in Novosibirsk. Graduated from Novosibirsk state University, The Russian School of Economics and the Chicago Business School. He defended his dissertation in America. “I was the first to measure with a high degree of accuracy the level of tax deviation for virtually every Russian company,” says Maxim. According to his calculations, in 2003-2004 Gazprom, Lukoil and RAO UES were the leaders in tax optimization. Returning to Russia, he worked as an investment director at Promsvyazkapital. He supervised major transactions, as well as a project in the field of mass media and telecommunications. Since 2009 he has been a professor of finance at the Madrid Business School of the Epresa Institute, where he teaches corporate finance. Adheres to the principle - family is more important than career. He is raising two children and often ponders how to make it easier and more pleasant to give birth and raise children in Russia. Mironov is close to the ideas of the Chicago School of Economics. About the free market, which itself best determines what the economy needs. In Moscow, he is most annoyed road traffic... Life is too beautiful to spend in traffic jams, says Maxim. In his free time from work, he lives in Buenos Aires.

S. GURIEV: Maxim, this is such an interesting biography. On the other hand, you, as a finance professor, could talk about other things, but you think that the project of creating kindergartens in Russia is a profitable business project. Although you want help from the state in this project too. Tell us about numbers. Finance professors, they all operate with numbers.

M. MIRONOV: I briefly summary project. What I really think is one of the most important projects precisely because, as it was said, I support myself with the dialogue that the market will figure out what to do. But for the market to figure out what to do, the market, it does not work by itself. We need people who are educated, talented, motivated to do something. Therefore, the state, in my opinion, should invest money not in those projects that the market itself can build. Such as financing factories, even building pipelines, etc. The state must provide the necessary conditions for people to implement this project. And this is exactly what the state should do in my understanding.

S. GURIEV: Well, you don't seem to say that the state is engaged in the reproduction of people. People can handle this on their own.

M. MIRONOV: Yes, people guessed long ago how this is done. But for anyone modern man the birth of a child is a significantly different process than being born there even 100 years ago. Quite a lot of urbanization is now taking place. People move to cities, they have a significantly different lifestyle, and in order for people to have children, they need to create qualitatively different conditions than they were even in the whole world, in Russia even 50 years ago. That is why, I believe that the state should not only kindergartens, but the entire chain, from hospitals, maternity hospitals, and ending with the army. A very large process of raising a child, from conception to release into adulthood. Therefore, the state should do all this.

A. SAMSONOVA: Maxim, again a contradiction. You say that you like the market. But why don't you want to give the market away such an area as kindergartens? After all, we have poor people who really need subsidies and cannot pay for kindergartens. Have access to them. And people rich and super-rich can create an infrastructure, as you write in your theses on the website echomsk.ru for your child. They can do their child kindergarten on the territory of his personal farm of 20 hectares. As for the middle class, why shouldn't it organize itself, why not create private kindergartens. This is an uplifting process, and possible.

S. GURIEV: They exist in Moscow. They work.

A. SAMSONOVA: And indeed a lot.

M. MIRONOV: I will explain. Well, first of all, having a child is, of course, a human decision. But do not forget that not only a person receives very great benefits from the birth of a child. Of course, this is happiness. And well, to say that it is a very pleasant feeling. But the state also receives very great benefits. And it is precisely the philosophy of even the free market that says that if there are social benefits to society, if there is some kind of benefit, if there are, in the end, taxes. Those. if when people grow up they pay taxes. The more people pay taxes, the more taxes they pay, this is a benefit to the state. Therefore…

S. GURIEV: Well, the state says the same when it builds a plant. It says the market does not understand, it does not build factories itself. Let's build a factory. He will pay taxes, it is profitable. How does your logic differ from the logic of building a plant, a pipeline, and affordable housing?

M. MIRONOV: In short, when a plant is being built, it has been proven in many studies that the state generally manages the plant worse, precisely because all the benefits from the plant go to the owner. Therefore, the owner, as proven by many studies, knows best how to manage the plant, how to maximize profits, etc. From the point of view of the birth of a child, benefits are received not only by the parent, but by the state, for example, if you give birth to a potential criminal, relatively speaking, the state will have to spend on prisons, will have to spend on compensation for those people to whom he has committed a crime, etc. If you give birth to a person who will work, pay taxes, create something else that cannot be measured in money, then the state will benefit, first of all, as a society. Therefore, the state should, first of all, finance those projects that benefit not only the individual, but also society in the broadest sense. Through taxes, through other factors.

A. SAMSONOVA: Maxim, but you yourself say that if something is controlled by private hands, it is better than if something is controlled by the state. Because the same logic most likely applies to both kindergarten and educational institutions... As far as I understand, in America, private universities are still better than public universities for the most part.

S. GURIEV: It's true.

A. SAMSONOVA: And we want the maximum benefit for our child. We do not want to make the state pay honestly for what it benefits from. We want the child to be good. Therefore, maybe it makes sense to pay less taxes, but to make private kindergartens with this money?

M. MIRONOV: My project does not call for the creation of public places in kindergartens. He offers the state in some form, for example, to provide free premises. Naturally at the competition. If there is a desire to develop a completely transparent scheme, for example, an entrepreneur comes there and says: I want to organize a kindergarten in this area. They say to him: "Hey, we will pay, let's talk within Moscow. Prices in other regions can be divided by 2. We will pay you rent within 4000 dollars per child. And if you ...

S. GURIEV: Per year.

M. MIRONOV: That it is quite possible to provide one child of 6-7 square meters, which corresponds to world standards, so that there are small groups, etc. The business of organizing, attracting educators, marketing, so that children do not get sick, lies with the entrepreneur.

A. SAMSONOVA: Maxim, Kommersant Vlast has calculated the cost of creating a private kindergarten. And there are fixed costs and there are variable costs. So the cost of renting premises does not make up the lion's share of the costs. Because the salaries of employees are comparable. The fire alarm is half of the rent for the premises, we are talking about a group for children of 10-15 people. And about an area of \u200b\u200b400 sq. meters.

S. GURIEV: It seems to me that this is not the most important thing ...

A. SAMSONOVA: This is not the main barrier.

S. GURIEV: Maxim says that, in principle, if you broadcast these 4000 dollars a year for one child, then this translates into a tuition fee, it turns out that there, 300 dollars a month. Those. you are simply talking about subsidizing private kindergartens for $ 300 a month.

M. MIRONOV: You could say that. And in principle, how to do it. Here it is important to understand how the state can do so so as not to spoil the market incentive. I will ask you, how much did Kommersant calculate the cost of one seat?

A. SAMSONOVA: There is no cost of one place per child, there are costs ...

S. GURIEV: For some reason, a rather small amount is obtained here ...

A. SAMSONOVA: Let's count about 2 million per month, taking into account the fixed ...

S. GURIEV: For 65 people. Those. it is not very much.

M. MIRONOV: I can just say where I got these numbers from. Let's just say I have a job in finance, and I have quite a lot of experience in evaluating various projects. If you don’t know the economics of the project, I don’t know the economics of the kindergarten project. To be honest, I have not organized a single kindergarten in my life. But I can watch how the market in other countries solves this problem. How much is it. For example, in Spain, where I now live, a place in a kindergarten in Madrid, in a rather expensive area, costs 500-700 euros per child.

A. SAMSONOVA: A month?

M. MIRONOV: Yes.

S. GURIEV: In Madrid, there is actually a hidden subsidization of kindergartens through various mechanisms. In America it is not, and there it costs about one and a half times more.

M. MIRONOV: That's 500-700 euros, yes. Considering that the cost of labor in Russia is still lower, well, even if we take these figures, it is at the current exchange rate of $ 600-850. Those. Relatively speaking, if the state provides services in the form of free rent (NOT INTELLIGIBLE), which is quite consistent, let's say, from $ 300 per month, then the final cost for the consumer will be $ 300-500 per month depending on the quality.

S. GURIEV: And you think that such a subsidy to cut tuition fees in kindergarten by half or by a third can dramatically increase the incentive to have a birth rate for people with high incomes.

M. MIRONOV: Yes, I am absolutely sure of this, because the birth of the middle class, the target audience of my project that I wrote, is a fairly wide audience, well, in Moscow these are people who earn from 2 to 4 thousand dollars a month. This is a wide class of people, not just people who work as managers. They are highly professional electricians, plumbers, people who are designers. In principle, a very wide range. And indeed, if now the cost of kindergartens in Moscow is from $ 1000 per month, i.e. relatively speaking, the person who can now financially afford to have one child will be able to have two children. The person who can afford two children can afford 4 children.

A. SAMSONOVA: Well, Anatoly Vishnevsky, director of demography at the State University of the Higher School of Economics, does not quite agree with this. He read your theses. Let's listen to his commentary.

MAN'S WORD OF THE 20TH CENTURY

ANATOLY VISHNEVSKY: Maxim Mironov proposes to solve demographic problems, in particular, the problem of fertility by building a million places in children's institutions. It seems to me that it simplifies the situation somewhat. Of course, children's institutions are needed. They need to be built, they are not enough, but it is very naive to think that they will decide everything. In France, the birth rate is higher than in Russia, it is true, but still it is also not so high. All children there can be 100% enrolled in kindergartens. There is no such problem. But this raises the birth rate a little, but not to the level that we would still need. Therefore, there are no simple solutions to very complex problems. In general, it seems to me that the blogger overestimates the importance of such common sense when it comes to very difficult things. Society is a very complex system. And the reasons why such long-term trends, including demographic ones, are formed, they cannot be understood and changed, proceeding simply from what seems reasonable. It also seems reasonable to me to build children's institutions so that there is no queue in them, but the reasons for the low birth rate are much more diverse and deeper. And that's why I don't think that everything can be solved so easily.

S. GURIEV: Maxim, really, to what extent exactly kindergartens can help solve this problem. Is it possible that a person can refuse to give birth to a child due to the fact that kindergartens will cost more or less. In the end, it is possible to make a choice that many families did 50 and 100 years ago, that one of the parents will stay at home with the child.

A. SAMSONOVA: And then, at the time of the decision to have a child, this problem is simply not in my head. Other issues are important.

S. GURIEV: Well, the finance professor is probably in his head.

M. MIRONOV: Well, I'll try to answer now. There have been several comments here and I agree with most of them. For example, if you look at the thesis that I wrote, I said that there are many problems in Russia, ranging from maternity hospitals to kindergartens, schools and, ultimately, the draft army institute. When my wife was pregnant with a boy, I already asked the question: what are we going to do? I said my position. Even this question ...

A. SAMSONOVA: And what is your position, by the way?

M. MIRONOV: I am a supporter, if there is a draft army, then everyone should go to it. Because otherwise the army with the marginal ... I do not know, I now live abroad, if my child lives abroad, then most likely his there. I do not know whether they go to military registration and enlistment offices on summons or not. But, generally speaking, I am a supporter. If there is a conscript army in society, then everyone should serve.

S. GURIEV: Did you serve, Maxim?

M. MIRONOV: Well, I have never run. I never am I finished military department, and moreover, I even went to the military registration and enlistment office, and I was declared unfit for some reason during wartime. I made sure that the military registration and enlistment office assigned me category A, which I am eligible at any time. But the summons to serve me did not come. I never from her ...

A. SAMSONOVA: Sergei, did you serve?

S. GURIEV: No, I did not serve, I am also a reserve officer, and I graduated from the military department, and never got into the active army. Well, we will not ask you, because in Russia women are not conscripted.

A. SAMSONOVA: Unfortunately.

S. GURIEV: But as a father of both a boy and a girl, I can say that this is also a big question for me. Will my son be drafted into the army or not.

A. SAMSONOVA: Actually, in fact, the whole complex of attitudes towards childhood and motherhood is a big question, these are big incentives or anti-incentives.

S. GURIEV: Tonya, as a professor, we can tell you. You cannot solve all problems at once, especially during a short transmission. We can concentrate on one problem. Maxim is proposing to spend $ 20 billion on a million kindergarten places.

M. MIRONOV: Yes, I will now explain the second part of the commentary, it is very common sense that indeed in France, in Sweden, etc., there are good kindergartens, and they are free, and there people give birth less than in Africa, where there are gardens nothing. Firstly,

S. GURIEV: People give birth in Africa a lot.

M. MIRONOV: Yes, that's what I'm talking about. In Africa, although there are no kindergartens, many are born. First, we do not know what the birth rate would be if there were no kindergartens there. We do not know if this will upset Russian society, but in general, in terms of per capita income, we are a poorer country than France, etc. and we are giving birth less than people of similar income levels. Those. in fact, we should rather not compare with France ...

A. SAMSONOVA: And with whom?

S. GURIEV: Portugal, Slovakia.

A. SAMSONOVA: Maxim Mironov compares Russia with Portugal and Slovakia, I will remind (SPEAKING TOGETHER), Maxim Mironov, professor at the business school of the Epresa Madrid Institute. We will continue our conversation on the topic "Successful people should multiply" in a few minutes. This is the program "The Day After Tomorrow". Don't go anywhere. We'll be back in a few minutes.

NEWS

A. SAMSONOVA: Hello, we are back in the studio. You listen and watch the program "The Day After Tomorrow", watch on the RTVI TV channel, listen on the radio "Echo of Moscow". The "The Day After Tomorrow" program, which we are doing together with our colleagues from the Russian version of the Forbes magazine. I represent my colleague, the host of this program, Sergei Guriev.

S. GURIEV: Good evening.

A. SAMSONOVA: Rector of the Russian School of Economics. My name is Tonya Samsonova. Today we are talking about "Successful people must reproduce." We speak with Maxim Mironov, professor at the business school of the Epres Madris Institute. Hello.

M. MIRONOV: Hello.

A. SAMSONOVA: We would like to give you the opportunity to respond to the comment of Anatoly Vishnevsky.

M. MIRONOV: I will now tell you about the rest of his commentary. About common sense. In my defense, I want to give an example of one scientist from Chicago, where I studied, his name is Stephen Levid.

M. MIRONOV: One of the problems that he managed to solve at the level of economics and common sense is why the birth rate in America has fallen. Crime has dropped. And he showed that there were many demographers, bright minds who tried to resolve this issue, no one could. And he, at the level of common sense and basic numerical methods, showed that it was the legalization of abortion 20 years later that led to a sharp drop in crime. And I consider myself one of those people who believe that common sense, economic logic can solve a problem that, perhaps, other areas of knowledge cannot solve. Let me explain the example of kindergartens. Why is this guaranteed to lead to an increase in fertility. I cannot say for sure, there will be 100,000, 500,000, 10,000, but this is guaranteed to lead to an increase. Because why is the birth rate falling in wealthy developed countries. Because the birth of a child, people are richer, they can afford more children. But the more expensive their time is, the less they can afford, because raising a child and having a child is a cost of time. Those. on the one hand, the richer they are, the more they can give birth, on the other hand, the more they earn, each hour costs more.

S. GURIEV: This is written in the book of the Nobel laureate Gary Becker, Maxim's scientific advisor in Chicago.

M. MIRONOV: Yes.

A. SAMSONOVA: You are simply economic determinists.

S. GURIEV: Economic imperialists.

M. MIRONOV: Therefore, if the state provides the right segment of the market with the opportunity to reduce the time for raising a child, and this, of course, then those people will give birth to more children, because this is only a factor that works only in one direction.

A. SAMSONOVA: Well, the answer of sociologists, excuse me, gentlemen, economic imperialists, to the same problem is that when it became socially acceptable that a woman who gave birth to two children continues to work, and does not sit with them at home, and gives them to the nursery garden or nanny, then women began to bear children. Because before that, if you have two children, you know what, honey, stay at home.

M. MIRONOV: Well, we seem to have passed this revolution.

A. SAMSONOVA: Russia is not.

M. MIRONOV: Why not? There were kindergartens in Russia back in Soviet times, and people actually sent their children to kindergarten, women went to work.

A. SAMSONOVA: Well, we encountered it to a lesser extent than the Italians, for example.

S. GURIEV: It's true. But one of the problems, and if you really look at the demographic data, is that in the 90s children and the demand for kindergartens were lower, many kindergartens were closed. And now the demographic wave has come again, and now there is a huge demand for kindergartens, and in the coming years it will only grow. And now this demand is not being met, and in the coming years it will be an even bigger problem than it is now, so this is really not a theoretical problem. How can a demographer, a sociologist and an economist talk about this? But I, as an economist, have a question for you, Maxim. In principle, there is maternity capital, where for every second child the state gives a fairly substantial subsidy in fixed rubles, thereby encouraging the birth rate in the poorer segments of the population. And you seem to be taking the same approach. For each child in kindergarten, it is true, but for each child you give a fixed amount of money. Maybe just give a place in kindergarten without any subsidies? For example, what the Russian state is doing now, you can, if you send your child to kindergarten, you can deduct from taxes a certain amount in rubles up to 50,000 rubles.

A. SAMSONOVA: For this you need to pay taxes and have a white salary.

S. GURIEV: Well, the middle class pays wages in white. Maybe not to limit 50,000 rubles? This is not a very large amount, because it will be the equivalent of 50,000 rubles a year, which means that this is only 13% of this amount ...

A. SAMSONOVA: This is 2 months of kindergarten.

S. GURIEV: Yes. This is not a very large amount. Maybe just don't limit this amount. So that any money you pay for a child, you would put 13% of it in your pocket. Maybe do this? Or subsidize any amount. You spent a ruble on kindergarten, the state returned 50 kopecks to you in any case. Maybe do this?

M. MIRONOV: There are several ways to solve the problem. I will comment, for example, about maternity capital. This is a certain fixed amount of money, in my opinion, 350,000 rubles, taking into account indexation, which, in principle, can be spent on a very wide range. If you look at how you rightly said, this basically stimulates the birth rate among the poor, because that's an example. If you have a salary of $ 2,000 a month, middle class. 60,000 rubles, this is just 6 months of your salary. It turns out that a woman from the state receives 6 months of salary, which she needs to get, put a lot of time, probably another month on top. And if you have a salary of 10,000, then accordingly you get 2.5 years, and naturally this stimulates the birth rate among the poor the most. Why did I suggest this project. Because I, as a financier, am mainly a specialist in the development of profitable projects. This project, it is guaranteed to bring profit to the state, no matter what its results. Let me explain with an example. If it stimulates the birth rate in the numbers that I wrote, i.e. per million places 100,000 children are new, then these children, when they grow up, will pay so much taxes that ...

A. SAMSONOVA: They will pay off.

M. MIRONOV: More than all the costs.

S. GURIEV: Maxim, but you have one more problem. When you talk about the birth rate among poor Russians and among the middle class, you somehow assume that those children born to poor Russians will work worse, earn less money and contribute to the prosperity of Russia. For some reason, you want to stimulate the birth rate among wealthy Russians. Which, it seems to me, in the first place, is not very fair. Why public money should be spent on the rich and not on the poor. On the other hand, perhaps the most successful people will be born among poor Russians.

M. MIRONOV: I completely agree with this thesis that the rich do not necessarily give birth to (INAUDIBLE). And my project is not designed for the rich, but aimed at at least 20-25% of the Moscow population. 2,000 dollars is if you say that 2,000 dollars a month in Moscow is a rich person, I think that this is not true.

A. SAMSONOVA: Let me defend Maxim, because why is it beneficial for the state to stimulate the rich, because if a mother, whose salary is 3000 dollars, stays at home and takes care of her child, then she does not pay extra taxes.

S. GURIEV: It is beneficial, but it cannot be fair.

A. SAMSONOVA: Moreover, it is unfair. In our country, all subsidies are distributed regardless of whether a person needs them or not.

M. MIRONOV: Yes, about justice. I studied at NES. For a while. And one ...

S. GURIEV: Exactly as much as needed. You have completed NES.

M. MIRONOV: I graduated from NES, yes. And one of the most useful lectures was the lecture (INAUDIBLE) when he talked about Arrow's theorem. I do not want to go into details, but he briefly said that the world always knew that there was no justice and Arrow proved that there is no justice and cannot be. Fairness depends on how you define it. This is generally the business of politicians. I'm not a politician. If you define fairness in one way, you can get some results if you define fairness in others, so I'm not ready to say whether this is fair or not, but I can say that all segments of the population will benefit from this project. The poor, the rich, and the middle class. Why will the poor benefit? Because if you create places in kindergartens for the middle class, the queue for the poor will decrease in kindergartens.

S. GURIEV: Free.

M. MIRONOV: Yes. You know, now, in order to send a child to a kindergarten in Moscow, you need to wait 2-3 years. And pay bribes.

S. GURIEV: And not only in Moscow. In Russia. A whole association of parents.

A. SAMSONOVA: You understand that at the social level this makes huge changes in society, and that if you make different kindergartens for children from different income groups, then this, at least, generates some kind of trouble, we already have stratification high enough. You are trying to fix it.

M. MIRONOV: Well, in general, I absolutely disagree with you. Because if only because by nature inequality is fixed from the moment of birth. But this is not the place for the rich. Any person can give this subsidy there. It's not like if you have less income, i.e. the market is already determining who will go. The state pays 3-4 thousand dollars a year subsidies. Then all the additional costs are paid by the parents in the end. Therefore, any person can send a child there. About the bundle. The stratification in Russia does not come from the fact that we have a large middle class. The stratification is taken because we have 5% of people who own everything.

S. GURIEV: 1 or 05%.

M. MIRONOV: Relatively speaking, 1%. Both 90 and middle class are within 10% of the population. So if you increase the size of the middle class, and if you stimulate the birth rate among the middle class, then inequality, it will decrease and the world will become, according to your interpretation, more just.

A. SAMSONOVA: Okay, let's listen to the comment of a person from the Forbes Golden Hundreds Dmitry Ananyev, Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Financial Markets and Currency Circulation, he also read your theses and has something to say.

MAN'S WORD OF THE 20TH CENTURY

DMITRY ANANIEV: Regarding Maxim Mironov's blog, I almost completely agree with the economic calculations, which, perhaps, look somewhat excessively theoretical in terms of the profitability and profitability of this project. I see the main difficulties in the following, in the harsh realities of life, which is that such a significant urbanization exists in our country. Those. possessing a very large territory, our territory is actually losing economically active population in small medium-sized cities. And big, big cities are poorly managed in terms of infrastructure in comparison with Western countries. This will make certain adjustments to this project, which on the whole looks very bold and interesting.

S. GURIEV: Well, Dmitry doubts that market incentives will work in our realities, where not all markets function effectively, and he, as the chairman of the Federation Council committee on financial markets, is probably well aware of this. Do you think, Maxim, are there enough subsidies to make the market work?

M. MIRONOV: Well, as far as I heard what Dmitry Nikolaevich said, that the main reason is that people really began to move to large cities, to megalopolises. And indeed, when people lived in villages and in small towns, people really gave birth a lot and there were no problems with kindergartens. But this trend, when people move to megacities, is a global trend. This is a trend in China, this is a trend in Russia, in India, in Europe for a long time. Therefore, unfortunately, we cannot do anything about this trend. I don’t want to debate whether this is good or bad, and Dmitry Nikolayevich said the second thing, that cities really turned out to be unadapted with the fact that children and people would come there, and even more unadapted, that these people would suddenly want to have children. And we faced just the problem that quite a lot of people came to Moscow, they constantly come and not only to Moscow. To Novosibirsk, to Krasnoyarsk, to any large city. And the city has no infrastructure. The second question is whether the market will cope with this. Well, for example, 20 years ago there were no adequate stores in Russia. There wasn't much.

S. GURIEV: There was no beer. Mobile phones.

M. MIRONOV: I didn't drink beer then. I am inclined to say that the market has solved a lot of problems where the state hindered it, or did not hinder it very much. Therefore, if the state even helps, then the market will solve this problem, as it solved it in all other countries of the world, the laws of the market according to the laws of physics. They work independently, even in communist countries the laws of the market work. Therefore, the market will solve the problem.

A. SAMSONOVA: Maxim, apparently, our listeners are worried about this topic, because a lot of messages have been sent to SMS +7 985 970-45-45, I will read them in a row. I think if we comment on all of them, we will not have enough time, but we would like to receive your comments by phone 363-36-59, and we ask you to call, attention, people who do not have children, and who are under 30 ... Here is your attitude to pumping, excuse me, money into kindergartens when there are so many problems in Russia. How do you feel about this, how important is this problem for you. This is by phone 363-36-59 well, and such sms. Tell me, why then no one stimulates the birth rate in the USA? There are no benefits and indulgences here. Writes Sveta from Chicago. Ket 164. The listener sent us a message via the Internet: my daughter went to a great garden. You should have seen the American one. Ours was remembered as paradise. I live in New York. You know, Vladimir Grishin, 44 years old from Tula, accuses you of some terrible sins. Actually, from this slogan. This means "Successful people must reproduce" smacks of Germany during the Reich. Further it will be necessary to clarify - healthy, beautiful, etc. Compare, for example, income levels and expense levels. It should also be considered not at the level of theses. The rest is also superficial and incomplete, writes Vladislav about your theses. Before the transfer, I read Maxim's theses. His calculations seemed reasonable to me, writes Larnik. But what about the Mexicans living in the USA, they have 4-5 children, they live in two-room apartments, the children sit with their mother, and the father works for 10-12 hours. And nothing. The successful ones should multiply, and the unsuccessful ones, what should be done? Listen, we have some messages from America. You see how they are worried about our problem.

S. GURIEV: Maxim, really, why do you think that kindergartens are not subsidized in America?

M. MIRONOV: Let me answer about America. As I wrote in the very first lines of the program, there are two ways to solve the problem of lack of human capital. You can import it ...

A. SAMSONOVA: From Russia.

M. MIRONOV: Well, not only. Not much from Russia.

S. GURIEV: Latin America and China.

M. MIRONOV: From Europe, from all over the world. In America, if you look at the composition of Chicago professors, the same is one of the leading business schools in America and in the world, there are almost half of the professors, she was not born in America. Those. America was able to create a system that it can take the cream of society from all over the world. We, unfortunately, I believe, in the foreseeable future will not be able to become as attractive a place for people from all over the world as America. Therefore, you need to try other ways. For example, natural reproduction.

A. SAMSONOVA: 363-36-59 ...

S. GURIEV: I would like to comment. My children went to an American kindergarten and a Russian one. I can say that America has good kindergartens ...

A. SAMSONOVA: Yes, in Russia too.

S. GURIEV: And in Russia too. But they cost about the same. And for the same money, kindergartens in America are better than in Russia.

M. MIRONOV: Yes, but in America the level of salaries is much higher and opportunities ...

A. SAMSONOVA: Competition.

M. MIRONOV: Of course, that is. they are available to the majority of the population.

S. GURIEV: Not available.

M. MIRONOV: Even the middle class.

A. SAMSONOVA: Let's involve the childless young listeners. Hello, hello, you are on the air of "Echo of Moscow", TV company RTVI what's your name?

LISTENER: Hello. My name is Denis Volkov.

A. SAMSONOVA: Denis, apparently, you are less than 30 years old?

DENIS: Yes. I am 30 years old, I have no children.

A. SAMSONOVA: Excellent. Well, that is not very good. But you are suitable for us.

DENIS: Am I on the air already or not?

S. GURIEV: Yes, you are on the air. Tell us, Denis, how important is the problem of the kindergarten for you in terms of how many children you want.

DENIS: I can answer you. I just have a very interesting situation. At my very close friends, they opened a private kindergarten. And they told me the story of the opening of this kindergarten. And this is a really big problem. Because there is a huge number of people who have given birth to children, they say that there are some incredible queues, bribes. Today I was told that in order to get into kindergarten, a State Duma deputy wrote a letter to the kindergarten. And after that, only the child was taken. And it's good that my acquaintances had an acquaintance of some kind of deputy.

S. GURIEV: Not all gardens are admitted even by a letter from a State Duma deputy. Sometimes a mayor and governor are required.

M. MIRONOV: They were just very lucky. They ended up with a letter from a deputy in a Moscow kindergarten. And my personal attitude to all this is this. I believe that, of course, a market needs to be created here, in my opinion, no subsidies are needed, because all subsidies in our country in order to be issued, this is an insane number of queues, bribes, and it is generally not clear what. You just need to create conditions for kindergartens to appear on the market. And again, my friends, who have their own kindergarten, recently opened Montessori technology, brought educators from Britain, and they tell the situation what is happening with them. The country is talking about modernization. And they say: Denis, we pay 35% of personal income tax, i.e. personal income tax, the fact that we employ foreigners. But in Russia there are no people who know how to raise young children using the technology that is used to bring up now in America and Europe. They simply do not exist, not a single person has such an education. And as a result, there is an insane cost price, incredible prices for getting into this kindergarten. And my friends opened a kindergarten because they did not find a kindergarten in the country that would suit them in terms of quality.

A. SAMSONOVA: Magic.

S. GURIEV: Tell us, please, about your decision. If you don't find a good kindergarten, how important is this problem for you?

A. SAMSONOVA: He has friends, Sergei.

S. GURIEV: Friends tell us stories, and Denis can tell us his own decision.

DENIS: Well, my decision will probably be that I am an entrepreneur, and if I am going to give birth to a child, then I will try to devote a lot of time to him, and take, probably, some semi-home solution. Those. I'll come up with my own private small kindergarten. But to communicate with our government agencies, honestly, I just, well, I have some kind of pathological dislike for government agencies, and therefore I personally disgust to go to some municipal kindergarten and humiliate myself in order to get into it.

A. SAMSONOVA: Thank you.

S. GURIEV: Well, it seems to me that this is more a criticism of my approach. Individual subsidies, tax deductions than the Maxim's approach, which suggests subsidizing not people, but gardens, so that a person does not have to get involved with anyone.

M. MIRONOV: Yes, it is absolutely true that just to remove from the chain of unfriendly educators, unfriendly kindergarten managers who extort bribes, who do not care about your child, because there are not so many people who want to create high-quality kindergartens.

A. SAMSONOVA: Colleagues, what is the story, that there are no normal educators in Russia, and we need to bring them from Britain? Like governess.

S. GURIEV: This is the Montessori system. It's just that it really is such a well-known system around the world. As you know, when the first McDonald's opened in Russia, well, probably, some personnel had to be transported from abroad. This is changing rapidly, naturally. It is not so difficult for the teacher. But there are indeed many kindergartens in Russia where foreigners work. And these kindergartens are sometimes cheaper than kindergartens where non-foreigners work. The point here is not only 35% of personal income tax.

A. SAMSONOVA: But also in the moral costs that you spend on a child in order to pump him out after talking with a Russian teacher.

M. MIRONOV: Well, in general, too, yes, there are such moments.

S. GURIEV: Well, we have a lot of wonderful Russian educators, owners and directors of kindergartens. Ton, don't ...

A. SAMSONOVA: In kindergarten I jumped out of the second-floor window because they locked me there, so you don't need to tell me. After that, I decided to apply to Echo of Moscow. Let's hold a vote to determine the position of our listeners, is it true that if more normal kindergartens are created, the birth rate in our country will increase. As it seems to you. If it seems to you that this is true, that this is exactly what will happen if you increase the number of places in kindergartens, then 66-00-66-4 is your phone, call and vote. If not, you don’t think that the increase in places in kindergartens will somehow greatly change the birth rate in Russia, 66-00-66-5. So, I repeat the numbers again. The number of kindergarten places will increase, the birth rate will increase 66-00-66-4. No, there is no such direct relationship 66-00-66-5. Voting is in progress, and we can probably try to take another call with you, especially since all lines are on. This listener has never been on the air, hello, you are on the air of Echo of Moscow and RTVI, what is your name?

LISTENER: Hello. My name is Dmitry. I would like to talk about the following ...

A. SAMSONOVA: Dmitry, you have no children and you are under 30 years old.

DMITRY: Yes, I am 26 years old and I am single and, probably, in quotation marks, or maybe without, the happy owner of a new building in the near Moscow region. We all see that a lot of different residential complexes are being built around Moscow, where the developer is naturally not interested in building infrastructure, and the main problem is the absence of kindergartens. Just in the Moscow region, in a 10-kilometer zone approximately, where in the Moscow region are these new tenants, who are just usually the middle class working in Moscow. And those leaving to live in the evening just in such micro-districts, there are mortgage apartments, etc. They are not interested in building, and even more so no one will subsidize them. And, in my opinion, in Moscow the problem is less acute, because if you travel around Moscow again, you can see that at the expense of the municipality, municipal kindergartens are now being reclaimed from 2-story ones, they are making 3-story ones, in new districts, new ones are being built according to the standards. And in the Moscow region the problem is very acute. And even if the developer has built a kindergarten, the private municipality does not want to accept it even as a municipal one. Because there is no money.

A. SAMSONOVA: Dmitry, unfortunately, very little time, a short question. Does this affect your decision to have children?

DMITRY: Yes, very much.

A. SAMSONOVA: Thank you very much. Sorry to interrupt you so.

S. GURIEV: Actually, this is a really huge problem. Many parents take their children from the Moscow region to Moscow to kindergartens that. Of course, neither the health of children, nor the desire to have children contributes.

M. MIRONOV: My project is broader than Moscow. This is the Moscow region, a megalopolis in the modern sense it is more than the federal boundaries of the city.

A. SAMSONOVA: Colleagues, we have a lot of numbers. The first digits are a 50/50 vote, almost 49/51. 49 believe that you are right. And that if we increase the number of places in kindergartens, then everything will be fine with the birth rate. 51 thinks the other way around. But what is much more interesting is the question that Maxim Mironov asked the audience of the Super Job portal. The population of Russia, over 18 years old, who came in and voted. Which of the following projects do you think best suits the long-term interests of Russia as a state? Which project would you choose if only one of the following could be financed. First, holding the Olympics in Sochi for $ 20 billion. Second, the extension of the lease of the Black Sea Fleet base until 2042 is 40 billion dollars. The creation of the Russian Harvard is 25-30 billion dollars, the creation of a million places in modern kindergartens in Russia 25-30 billion dollars, I find it difficult to answer, free of charge, 13% vote for it. And here is how the votes were distributed.

S. GURIEV: Maxim, what do you think was the most popular project?

M. MIRONOV: I don't know. Because again, I'm not a politician. If…

A. SAMSONOVA: I am a financier.

M. MIRONOV: I am a financier. I suggested a project that I understand. It is profitable for the state, live cash plus social benefits.

S. GURIEV: You are really not a politician.

A. SAMSONOVA: You are really not a politician. You can't even feel how many people support you - 52%, while there were 5 answer options. 52% support your decision. 16% also focus their resources and the country's resources in the field of education. And to some extent they want a Russian Harvard for $ 25-30 billion. In third place, with the extension of the Black Sea Fleet base in Sevastopol to 42 years, 12%. Well, anything can happen. And 7% for the Sochi Olympics.

M. MIRONOV: Well, at least this is a recipe for politicians to do to ...

S. GURIEV: To win the elections.

M. MIRONOV: To increase popularity. If I were a politician, I would win the choice of those who propose, for example, to extend the base of the Black Sea Fleet, or there are some other projects.

A. SAMSONOVA: You always think in abstract models, Maxim.

S. GURIEV: It is in Sevastopol that kindergartens for Russian citizens will be located.

A. SAMSONOVA: Well, well, it was the "The Day After Tomorrow" program, in which today, on Children's Day, we talked about "Successful people should multiply," we talked about this with Maxim Mironov, professor at the business school of the Epres Institute in Madrid. And we want to thank our partners from the Russian version of Forbes magazine, the producer of our program, Irina Babloyan. And I want to thank Sergei Guriev, host of this program, rector of the Russian School of Economics ...

S. GURIEV: Thank you.

A. SAMSONOVA: Thank you. Tonya Samsonova. All the best. Until next Tuesday. And go to the website echomsk.ru, there you will see the theses of our next guest Vadim Novikov.

On Tuesday at the Polytechnic Museum, Professor of the American Institute of Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics Michael Reimers gave a public lecture "The latest evolutionary changes in the human genome."

In the "Gattaca" auntiutopia, all people were born with a perfectly matched and tested set of genes

The professor started right off the bat, recognizing that there is still no consensus in the scientific world regarding human evolution. Some researchers believe that at the moment human evolution has slowed down (meaning genetic changes); others, on the contrary, believe that it has accelerated, and tenfold.

The two "most recent" gene mutations of a massive nature occurred 11 thousand and 6 thousand years ago. The first is the appearance in Scandinavia of the gene responsible for light hair and blue eyes, the second is an unexpected opportunity that allowed adults to assimilate milk.

But non-mass mutations have spread nowhere further. According to Michael Reimers, each of us carries many mutated genes. "About 50% - 60% of mutations are neutral, 30% - 40% are harmful and lead to various diseases and degeneration, and only 10% are useful," the professor explained.

And all these bad mutations are inherited. It turns out that pathological genes accumulate in modern humanity exponentially.

Earlier, just a few centuries ago, mutations helped humanity survive - in the event of various epidemics, there were always those whom the infection did not take. According to the professor, modern humanity is not threatened by any epidemics. For example, in the Middle Ages, the cow plague, mutating, spread to people, mowing half of Europe. In our time, bird flu, having tried to spread to the Chinese, has failed. Advanced medicine prevented him from doing this.

But what to do with non-mass mutations of a useless and negative plan? Genetic engineering should be put into action, the scientist said. According to Michael Reimers, each person's genes exist in two copies - "one healthy and one broken, tragedy occurs if both are broken."

In order not to inherit a mutated gene, a person must entrust his sperm (or egg cell) to professional geneticists, who will clean out everything bad from it. Now, according to the professor, humanity is afraid to use this method, but in 10 years (maximum - 20) we simply will have nothing else to do but to start multiplying in this way. Children from this will be all healthy and smart. Of course, there is one danger, the professor admitted. Most likely, certain genes will be recognized as ideal, and humanity will quickly become the same.

At the same time, the American scientist voiced some more interesting facts. For example, long hands our ancestors arose 3 million years ago - and also as a result of mutations. Then people had not yet learned how to make fire, and they did not really know how to hunt either. Instead of chasing antelope across Africa, our ancestors sought out the meat that the lions hid. For a couple of hours, while the predators slept in the afternoon, the man had to "borrow" the half-eaten and drag it to his parking lot. It is clear that those with longer arms succeeded in stealing meat. So this beneficial mutation soon spread to all of the then Homo Sapiens.

Which, by the way, were not the only people - there were 5 different biological species in all of them in those days. But four of them died out - apparently, their hands were short.

The question "why" implies that it was created or invented by someone intelligent for some specific purpose. If we do not mean religious teachings, then the question "why" should not arise in principle, because it is meaningless.

Everything is quite logical here - somehow 4 billion years ago life appears on Earth. If life appears with the ability to continue the race, then it will continue the race and survive. If not, then she will die out in the first generation and no one will know about her. That is, it is not even a "law of nature", because the law is also invented by someone. This is the logical outcome of evolution and the struggle for survival. If you think so, then all our ancestors had sex at least once and wanted it (hello, UP), and all those who did not want and did not do it, did not leave this gene pool.

The development of organisms occurs not through the purposeful introduction of some signs by a certain creator, but by a string of random mutations. If the mutation is positive, the individual gains an evolutionary advantage and has a greater chance of leaving offspring, and this offspring with the mutation has an even greater chance of leaving offspring and ousting individuals without this mutation. A negative mutation leads to the fact that the individual gets less chance of survival and less chance of leaving offspring (leaving his mutation in future generations). This also happens at the transitional stages of evolution, if in a population, for example, of raccoons, an individual appears that does not know how or does not want to reproduce, then it does not give offspring and the genes that encoded this asexuality disappear from the gene pool. Therefore, only genes have accumulated in our gene pool, which dispose to the desire and ability to continue the race. Procreation is the basis of all living things, no reproduction - no life.

We received instincts and unconditioned reflexes from our ancestors that are conducive to procreation, but this does not mean that this is the original meaning, although it can be invented. We cannot approach this issue from a teleological point of view, this is not true, we have no "cause and effect", there are only previous and subsequent events.

Hmm, it's not about design.

You did not quite understand me correctly. The question did not apply to some outsiders.

The fact is that the need for food appeared as a response to the body's need for certain substances, which is necessary for survival.

And here is the question for reproduction ...

It is not clear how the organism knows that reproduction occurs at all? ..

It is very difficult to formulate, but at the level of gene memory, in order for something to be deposited and passed on to the next generations, it must be tested and checked for efficiency.

And how has this passed on to other generations, if the effectiveness of reproduction by and large cannot be measured and verified by the body?

Well, the word "why" refers rather to the roots of the entire need for reproduction.

Why exactly "reproduction", and how it all began and developed.

To answer

The effectiveness of a trait is measured in terms of the number of healthy offspring.

You say "the need for food appeared as a response to the body's need for certain substances," but this is just a convention. In fact, signs do not appear "in response to something", they appear in a random order at a random time. That is, birds did not develop wings in response to the need to fly, they just got wings and learned to use them.

The wings did not appear exactly when they needed to fly, they appeared before, they were simply meaningless. The same with other signs, this is not a reaction to necessity, it is just a random mutation that happened just in time.

Let's return to the test of effectiveness - in nature, this is the number of healthy offspring. That is, as I already explained:

1. An individual appears that does not know how to reproduce, it does not reproduce, does not leave offspring, and its mutated genes disappear from the gene pool;
2. An individual appears that can reproduce, it multiplies, leaves offspring and its mutated genes remain in the gene pool.

This is a test for efficiency - how many offspring an individual gave and the efficiency parameter is not measured within one organism (the organism does not check what is beneficial to it and what is not, it just does what is programmed, and the answer is given by evolution). Efficiency is measured within a population or species, so the body itself does not need to measure it. That is, even if we are talking about the need for food - yes, it is beneficial to the body so that it is healthy and can get food for itself, to escape from a predator. But in the end, it all comes down to the fact that he gave offspring, and his offspring gave more offspring. The biological meaning of life is to preserve it. And that's all.

Moreover, leaving offspring can be unprofitable for the organism itself - after that, some species die immediately. But at the same time, the function of this organism has already been fulfilled - it left offspring, which means that it is no longer needed for procreation.

Therefore, it is impossible to measure the "efficiency" of reproduction from the point of view of a multiplying organism, it alone does not need it for survival, but at the level of all life as such, this is a necessary criterion for the survival of a species. That is, there may not be any sense in this, the mutation appeared and became beneficial for evolution. All.

To answer