![\"\"](\"https:\/\/staging.kabbalah.info\/app\/uploads\/2025\/12\/image-46.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n\u041c<\/strong>. Laitman:<\/strong> I\u2019ve heard a lot about you, Mr Khazin. I\u2019ve also read a few of your works. Of course I am not an economist by education, although I also engage in the study of the global problems of humanity, but from the point of view of Kabbalah. I know that you\u2019ve been researching and trying to find a solution to the problems of the world economy and the Russian economy in particular. I am very interested to know if we can find common ground in our two very different approaches. They could suggest a combined solution or additional ideas in our further research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>The picture behind your back inspired me to give a short introduction, if you allow it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>Yes please. Of course.<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>This happened five years ago. I was taking my five-year-old daughter home from her preparatory school. We were in the underground at rush hour and were pushed into a corner. There happened to be a man and a woman next to me. They were obviously members of a semi-Christian sect, and seeing that I had nowhere to go they started to actively work on me saying: \u201cHave you ever read the right books? Do you believe in Christ?\u201d and so on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Feeling a strong resentment, I asked them: \u201cGuys, can you prove to me the existence of your God? Why are you bothering me?\u201d They said: \u201cThis is written in the book.\u201d I asked: \u201cIn the book? When was this book written?! Give me an example of direct, divine intervention.\u201d They said: \u201cWe can\u2019t do that.\u201d I said: \u201cYou can\u2019t, but I can.\u201d They asked me, \u201chow?!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n I told them: \u201cLook what is written in the Main Book. In the comprehensible form of a parable the Main Book explains about man\u2019s relationship with God. Let\u2019s take one of the first parables, which is about Babel. What does it say?\u201d they asked. \u201cWell, it says that arrogance is a sin and if man decides that he can talk with God on his own initiative then he is terribly wrong. Yet punishment doesn\u2019t follow immediately because man should be given time to change his mind. If he feels powerful enough to not only speak about his intention to establish contact with God but also to impose his opinion on the whole world (namely to build a tower reaching up to heaven), the punishment follows at once. The tower was destroyed and the languages were mixed upto prevent people from rebuilding it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNow let\u2019s have a look at 1991. The United States of America is at the peak of its power, openly declaring its values to be the most important values in the world. Consequently it intends to impose its values on everyone. In other words, it would replace God. What happens? Not only does the tower of American economy crumble during the following eight years, but it crumbles through destruction of the world\u2019s unified language of economy\u2014the US dollar. So you can see, this is not just an economic crisis. It is developing exactly according to the mechanism that was described twenty-five hundred years ago. Make your own conclusions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Over the last five or six years, when talking to my students about the modern crisis, I tell them this story saying: \u201cGuys, when we speak about the modern economy we can certainly discuss interest rates, inflation or other things, but we should realize that certain basic values should underlie them. A deviation from these values (some believe this happened in the 18th century, others say it was in the 16th century) constitutes the basic contradiction. For this reason this economy is destined to be destroyed. Actually, it is being destroyed as we speak.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is what lies at the foundation and everyone should make his own conclusion about who controls everything and how. Essentially, this is the reasoning basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>Well, now I will take a few minutes to share my view of the tower of Babel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At that time in ancient Babylon (this was around four thousand years ago) people reached the same state as we have reached today\u2014a global universal interdependence. They too found themselves in a \u201csmall village,\u201d dependent on one another (as in a \u201cbutterfly effect\u201d), not knowing what to do next. Driven by their egoism, they decided to erect a \u201ctower reaching up to heaven.\u201d This was an allegorical expression of their egoism. As a result they stopped understanding one another and became alienated (language mix-up).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact, languages were not mixed up. There was one language at the time. Languages appeared later, when people were scattered to all corners of the world. Initially they simply stopped understanding one another (as if \u201cspeaking in different tongues\u201d), just as we say when we don\u2019t understand one another. That is how they were separated. Their egoism alienated them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At that time there lived a pagan priest who made amulets and idols for sale. His name was Abraham. Abraham started reflecting on this process. He described his thoughts in his book called The Book of Creation<\/em>. Abraham discovered that human egoism was constantly growing. In defiance of this egoism man should keep a general social balance. In other words, we should live in balance with one another in our human society and with nature just as nature\u2019s inanimate, vegetative, and animate levels coexist in a state of homeostasis. Man is an exception because his egoism makes him opposite to nature and compels him to hate others. He desires not just to exist normally, but to build his well-being on suppression of other people and to enjoy humiliating others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Abraham revealed all of this. He then said that \u201cLove thy neighbor as thyself\u201d is the fundamental law of nature. In reality, this is truth for the human society and not a fine phrase. This is a law that really exists in nature. If man attains this state, he achieves balance. The entire system of inanimate, vegetative, animate, and human nature achieves balance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If we develop under the yoke of our constantly growing egoism and fail to balance ourselves with nature, we finally come to a crisis similar to the one that took place in ancient Babylon. They were able to cope with that crisis by dispersing in all directions. They stopped communicating with one another and abandoned one small village.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kabbalah predicted (and Abraham wrote about this) that in our time, starting in 1995 (it even mentions the date) humanity will reach the state of a small global village again. People will be completely dependent on one another and they will naturally hate one another. This is the problem we must solve because the problem is not in economy. The problem lies in all human activities: culture, science, education, family disintegration, drug abuse, depression, ecology which we influence, and climate. The entire system is in complete disorder because man upsets its balance. There is no other factor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The science of Kabbalah says that today nature forces us to realize our interdependence and to achieve balance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>Firstly, let me say one thing. In and around 1995 the world economy passed a point of no return, the moment when the current crisis became unavoidable. I tell you the exact date because this is a process, but 1995 sounds very close.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a matter of fact, this happened during the period of the Clinton administration around the middle of his term. If we go back to a strictly economic sphere, then it could be said: egoism doesn\u2019t fall from the sky\u2026 How shall I put it? There are schemes for building a society that are limited by egoism and those that actively develop it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Speaking of modern economy, its prerequisites appeared in the 16th century when after the \u201cgolden crisis\u201d and the \u201cminor ice age\u201d in Europe, humanity chose modern capitalism (i.e., the use of a loan interest in production) in order to survive. To all intents and purposes, they abolished one of the basic prohibitions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>Yes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>This theory, this model developed for about 200 years. At a certain point it became clear that it was unstable. After that the development continued in two economic directions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first is the reinstatement of the prohibition of interest on a loan. In our terminology it is called the development of a \u201cred\u201d socialist project. It had only one flaw: its followers were developing the theory in the 19th century, which was the age of atheism. Due to this reason they made their theory fundamentally atheistic. That was its weak point and they finally lost because of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The other concept, the modern Western project, is a rejection of any prohibitions whatsoever. I can\u2019t use a certain term because in different sources the modern Western society is called different names, but we usually characterize its followers as \u201camandiolists\u201d (meaning \u201cfollowers of a unified world government\u201d). They chose the path of the development of freedom in the following sense: man is free to choose his own basic restrictions (commandments).<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, this became quite apparent in the famous story of New Orleans during the hurricane Katrina. Every normal person has moral standards, a system of inner commandments. He doesn\u2019t kill not because he will be punished, but because killing is forbidden. The people who lived in New Orleans during the crisis had a different (Western) system of values. They had a law, but no moral standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is a law? It is a code, police, prison, court of justice, and so on. In the absence of police and court of law, killing is permitted. There is no inner ban.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One should clearly understand that modern economy in which profit is of paramount importance is based on loan interest. The economic creation of this system is a long story. It consisted of several stages: 1913\u2014the establishment of the Central bank and the US Federal Reserve System; 1944\u2014the Bretenwood agreement; 1971\u2014rejection of a dollar\u2019s gold standard, final separation of money from reality and establishment of a system in which multiplication of money became the main element of an economic system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Today this system is dying before our eyes. It will be an extremely agonizing process with very grave consequences. The problem is that we have to invent a new model. Around a year and a half ago I constructed a report entitled \u201cBasic values of a new financial economic paradigm\u201d at the Rodos Conference \u201cThe Dialog among Civilizations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Today humanity should invent a model that is based on fundamental values, yet it should be a working model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is because one of the ideas suggested by amandiolists suggests the following: \u201cThere are too many people; hence they abuse nature and so on. We should reduce the world population of six billion to two hundred million and then everyone will be happy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n No one will be happy because the problem lies in the economic model. The invention of a new financial and economic model is a problem which I have contemplated for a number of years. I hope that the number of people thinking about this issue will grow because it is impossible for this problem to be solved by one person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>Don\u2019t you think that the solution of this problem lies not only in building a different kind of economic relationship, but in the sphere of education? Unless we establish our economic relationships on a moral basis (one must correctly interact with others regardless of loan interest or police), then all our efforts will fail.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>There is no doubt about it! In the absence of moral standards it will be impossible to build a new model. It must be invented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>Why should we invent it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>Because today\u2019s model destroys moral standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>Yes, but why should we invent it?! We can take it from nature. Look how our biological body is built at the animate level (not at the human level). The human level is supposedly higher than the animate one. At animate level each cell of our body is egoistical, but all cells unite for the sake of the body, each of them neutralizing its egoism for the sake of the life of the whole body. Thus different body organs exist in harmony with one another. None of them receives more than is necessary for its existence and the sustenance of the body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We see that nature can\u2019t exist any differently! Life only exists based on this principle!<\/p>\n\n\n\n So if we want human society to exist normally, such relations between people must be established.<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>If we use this analogy, then capitalist economy is a cancerous growth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>Of course!<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>An organism has mechanisms such as the immune system that protect it from such processes. We need to develop a system like this. How? I\u2019m not really sure, although I recognize that this would take quite a long time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is another problem: I\u2019ve talked a lot with different people who practice Islam, including a well-known man called Geidar Jemal who said to me: \u201cMisha, there is a splendid Islamic model. It completely and strictly prohibits interest on a loan. Why don\u2019t we use it as the basis?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n I answered: \u201cGeidar, take note, no Islamic country has ever built an industrial state.\u201d I don\u2019t know\u2026, perhaps Iran is an exception. But Iran is more a Persian than an Islamic state. I don\u2019t know why, but I am inclined to believe that it could be that the strict ban imposed on loan interest creates certain problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The modern society only exists due to industrial civilization. All high-yielding crops give rich harvests only because we apply extensive fertilization; and fertilizers mean electricity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So while we clearly understand that there is a need for a new society, we realize that it should fundamentally differ from the present one. It\u2019s quite obvious that such a society should be based not on the economy, but on morality, there is no question about it. However, as an economist I clearly realize that the transition may be very difficult. I still don\u2019t understand how we can even start on this path. We see from the past that it is very difficult to find a correct path without flooding the world with blood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>What if we flood the world with information? We would forcibly remove all violence from TV, all yellow press from mass media, and simply start explaining to the world (in all possible ways!) what this world is really like. Globalization means connection between people. It is not a specialization, when nuts are produced here and bolts are made there. This is not the meaning of globalization! Its meaning lies in the inseparable connection, complete interaction, and mutual influence of people. If we start explaining this to people and showing everyone that to do otherwise means we face the threat of destruction, wouldn\u2019t this educational process constitute a transition from an economic basis to a moral one?<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>I can only express my own opinion. For a start, the fact that humanity has become a unified entity today (information-wise as well) is to a great extent the result of bolts being produced in one place and nuts in another. Modern society is built on an economic system ofdivision of labor. However, the problem of modern economy lies in the fact that the system ofdivision of labor is designed so that it must be constantly extended. There is no way to stop it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>There is no need to stop it. Why would we?<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin:<\/strong> But there is no more room for extension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>Of course there is! It can be extended wonderfully! We just need to create a different basis for it! Let\u2019s establish good relationships among us, for otherwise we won\u2019t survive. Our system is in conflict with nature\u2019s global law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>Look at what happens in practice: the USSR declares that it dismantles its system of the division of labor and joins the Western one. The fact that this happened due to objective or subjective reasons is of no importance at all. A certain thing took place. Let\u2019s proceed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The USSR had an aircraft building industry, which by that time had produced 40% of the world\u2019s passenger aircraft fleet. Today Russia has practically stopped manufacturing passenger planes. In other words, the Russian aircraft industry has lost hundreds of billions of dollars that it could have made from airplane sales.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Russiaspent this amount of money on the creation and implementation of a television system with the purpose of explaining that this system is right and good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The problem is that since the system of division of labor is based on a loan interest and multiplication of money, it always allocates enormous sums of money for the propaganda of its own value. Experience shows that very few people are able to ignore this propaganda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I remember my personal feelings very well. I was a mathematician and started studying economics in 1992. I remember how seriously I was taking all of the Western propaganda (including the economic one) that was reaching the Soviet Union. It took me five years to realize that it was lying. I understand this quite clearly today\u2026 When I give lectures to my students, I tell them the same things that you are saying: \u201cGuys, there are certain moral principles and they are more important than the knowledge that you receive here.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>These principles are not moral! These principles are natural! They exist in nature! We can\u2019t get away from them! Accepting or rejecting them is not our choice. Moral principles are those that we can add to our life. The principles that I describe are the principles of survival, of nature\u2019s existence! Accepting or rejecting them means surviving or perishing. Do you understand?<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>Yes, I agree with you,butyou can\u2019t explain this to an ordinary person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>Today the world is facing a very grave problem. You understand what is going to happen to it in the next few years better than I do. Today, when we realize that everything is crumbling, we can smoothly introduce a new system of relationships. We can put this \u201cpillow\u201d under the falling world and it will stop falling. To the extent of our understanding of how we should interact with one another we would gradually reshape our existence\u2026 We will be drawing up contracts in a different way! Governments and states will make different agreements. We will see that we have to do this! Do you understand what I mean?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tell me as a mathematician: if we accept the global character of the world today, what kind of a big business can we do without taking the whole world into consideration? Ideally, this is impossible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>A big business is impossible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>In a couple of years even a small business won\u2019t be an option! Even at a micro level there will be no interaction.Look how a family disintegrates; the very foundations of our society crumble.<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>I agree, but the problem is that Lawrence Summers will be the next US President\u2019s head economist and Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State. I can assure you that all the documents they will prepare and sign will say that the dominance of the USA and the banks of Wall Street should be ensured at any cost. I know this because I used to work in the Russian Federation government in the nineties and I know who Summers is. He is not a man who will change his position, if only because he is sincerely convinced that the only right position is his.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I don\u2019t even want to speak about H. Clinton. I am generally very skeptical about the situation in which women start solving global problems. Everyone on this earth has his\/her own function. A woman\u2019s task is not solving the world\u2019s problems, but bearing and correctly raising children. These are different tasks, but this changes nothing in America.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>I completely agree with you on this. But that\u2019s not the point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The point is that we don\u2019t upset anything by introducing universal global education. We say: Let\u2019s explain to people what the world in which they live is like. They live in a global world. What is \u201ca global world\u201d? And what is \u201ca butterfly effect\u201d? What is \u201ca small village,\u201d \u201cuniversal dependence,\u201d \u201cabsence of trust\u201d and so on? Let\u2019s explain these things to people! In other words, today we are facing problems with which we can\u2019t work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>I would formulate it differently.Instead of saying \u201cLet\u2019s explain\u201d I would say \u201cLet\u2019s start explaining\u201d because sometimes a very long time passes between the beginning of a process and its result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>All right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>I meet many different people with whom I discuss the economy. The open-minded amongst them grasp the system I suggest, while others remain unconvinced and don\u2019t agree. But on the whole they understand it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet when I come across someone who spent a year studying in the United States of America (in Harvard, Princeton or Yale), all understanding stops. As soon as you start talking with these people, a hard impenetrable wall gets erected. They don\u2019t want to hear and it is clear why.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was explained to them that if they followed certain rules, their life would be a success: they would have a handsome salary, they would be invited to large conferences and interviewed by major newspapers\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>All of that has come to an end today! It is all falling! They are standing like little children, trembling and having no idea where they are. They are bewildered\u2014the mother is gone and they don\u2019t know what to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>Very few people really understand what is going on, especially those who bear no responsibility. The people who bear responsibility and understand the magnitude of the occurring events realize that things look bad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The people belonging to these colossal so-called \u201cexpert communities\u201d have never born any responsibility. They were receiving comforts and pursuing their careers without assuming any responsibility for their actions. Just look at all those fake analysts\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u041c<\/strong>. Laitman: <\/strong>Yes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n M. Khazin: <\/strong>It is a heart-rending sight. How many people did they bring to ruin? Yet they bear no responsibility for this. These people are sincerely convinced that everything that is going on is just another small crisis that will end in six months, or maybe a year or two. It will take a great deal of time to explain to them that the world in which they used to live has come to an end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is one more circumstance \u2013 they were receiving all of their advantages and influence from a certain source. This is a standard situation: when I carry on polemics with someone on the Internet, an argument of the following type is typically put forward: \u201cDid he make enough money to buy an apartment? Is he invited to prestigious conferences? No? He\u2019s not worth listening to, whatever he says. He is just a loser.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n We should clearly understand that until life itself clears such stereotypes away, there is no point talking; they don\u2019t and wouldn\u2019t hear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n