Chapter 5 The Wealth of Nations and the Wealth of the People

In the 1980s, Chinese people were full of worries. Many people even worried that China, a yellow civilization, might lose its "ball membership" in the process of "bluening" the world; Another aspect has witnessed that the Chinese are regaining their self-confidence.Obviously, this psychological change mainly depends on the rapid growth of China's economy in the past three decades.However, at the same time, more and more people have begun to notice that the rise of a country does not necessarily lead to the rise of its people, and that a country's wealth does not necessarily mean that its people are rich.

In 1776, the year of the United States' Declaration of Independence, Adam Smith published An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.This economics work, which strongly promoted the development of capitalist society, was translated as "The Wealth of Nations" in China.However, combined with the economic spirit advocated by Smith, it is not difficult to find that the key to the book lies in the "theory of the wealth of the people" and "theory of equal wealth".Smith said: "Where there is great wealth, there is great inequality. For one very rich man, there must be at least 500 poor people. The wealth of the few must be premised on the poverty of the many."

In any era, only the real "wealth of the people" can have the real "wealth of the country".Similarly, when a society is committed to the pursuit of democracy, civil rights, etc., it will not separate the ideal of "people's wealth".In fact, "people's wealth" not only means the realization of personal life and ideals, but also contains a kind of social ambition.In Smith's words, although each person "only wants his own interest," he seems to be "directed by an invisible hand to try to achieve an end that he did not intend to achieve.  … He pursues his own interests, often enables him to promote the interests of the community more effectively than he really intends to promote".If the government holds a large amount of wealth in its own hands, the country will lose the endogenous driving force for sustained economic growth, and if the people control the wealth, it will instead increase social well-being through the free flow of wealth.

Xing Pu, a member of the Shanghai Municipal People's Political Consultative Conference, formally proposed at the two sessions in 2008 that the people of the whole country should distribute 1,000 yuan per person to share in the high growth of fiscal revenue.In this era that emphasizes tax obligations rather than tax rights, people seem to be used to the government "taking from the people". Committee member Xing Pu's suggestion that the government "repay the money" inevitably gives people the impression of being "not serious". However, in today's prosperous world, "finding the government to pay dividends" is not so much a fantasy as an international practice.Not long ago, the Singaporean government announced the "Government Surplus Sharing Plan for All People", imitating the method of enterprises returning surplus to shareholders, and sending a big "red envelope" equivalent to 4.3 billion yuan to the people.The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government of China followed closely behind, preparing to rebate 40 billion Hong Kong dollars due to its huge fiscal surplus, with a tax rebate rate as high as 75%.To stimulate the US economy, the Bush administration proposed a $145 billion tax cut plan.

Although the proposal seems whimsical, it has to be admitted that no matter what the result is, the proposal of "distributing 1,000 yuan to everyone" is already a winning concept.What is written behind this proposal is the heavy question of the times, that is, whether we can establish a government that can realize social dividends, and what kind of national ethics innovation is needed. "Social Dividend" was formally proposed in 1938 by the British economist James Mead, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1977, in "Introduction to Economic Analysis and Policy".As early as 1936, Mead proposed the concept of "social dividend" in his book "Introduction to Economic Analysis and Policy".In Mead's view: "The state will gain profits from the capital and land invested in social enterprises. It can distribute part of the profits as social dividends to consumers and another part as reinvestment in social enterprises." Two years Finally, in the book "Consumer Credit and Unemployment", Mead further clarified that the "social dividend" directly distributed to each citizen is used as a "counter-cyclical" policy tool, which can also make it expand during economic depression. The role of consumption.

In this regard, the most typical and enlightening case is the practice from Alaska, USA. In 1968, rich oil and natural gas resources were discovered in Prudhoe Bay.Since the land in Prudhoe Bay is owned by the state government of Alaska, the state government obtained $900 million in revenue from oil field leases in September of the following year.In order to prevent this huge public wealth from being spent, Alaska Governor Hammond proposed to use the money to establish a permanent fund to benefit future generations of Alaska.This is the origin of the "Hammond Plan" later passed by the Alaska State Assembly.Due to the establishment of the Alaska Permanent Fund, in the autumn and winter of 1982, more than 400,000 residents of Alaska each received the social dividend of the first check worth $1,000.In the Dow's peak year of 2000, each Alaskan citizen received nearly $2,000 in dividends.

Today, social dividend theory has been understood and accepted by more and more people in China.In addition to Tsinghua University professor Cui Zhiyuan and other scholars advocating the establishment of the "Chinese People's Permanent Trust Fund" at the academic level, during the "Two Sessions" in 2007, some members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference put forward relevant proposals, suggesting that part of the profits of state-owned enterprises should be allocated to establish relevant permanent funds so that everyone All can share the "social dividend" and have the same glory and dream as the American Alaskans.

The executive meeting of the State Council held on May 30, 2007, studied and deployed the trial implementation of the state-owned capital operation budget. The meeting decided to start the trial implementation of the state-owned capital operation budget at the central level in 2007, that is, the government, as a shareholder, extracts dividends and dividends from the profits of state-owned enterprises. Redistribution means that the thirteen-year-long era of state-owned enterprises paying taxes but not dividends is gone forever. The previous year, the World Bank released a report recommending that China's large state-owned enterprises pay dividends to the government.The report believes that the profits and restructuring income of China's state-owned enterprises are public revenues, which should be distributed to the state and turned over to the Ministry of Finance. The decision on dividend payments should be included in the unified budget and approved by the National People's Congress.

As we all know, since 1994, China's large number of state-owned industrial enterprises, including some enterprises in monopoly industries with high profits, have never paid dividends to the Ministry of Finance, SASAC or any other central government departments.However, it is an undeniable fact that in the past few years, the state has not only borne most of the costs of some corporate restructuring, but has also taken over the social functions of former state-owned enterprises such as schools and hospitals, and the state has lost jobs and advanced Retirement and other related costs also bear the main responsibility.In stark contrast to the poverty-stricken and undivided situation in the past, according to the data from the Ministry of Finance, in 2007, the profits of state-owned enterprises across the country exceeded one trillion yuan.

Of course, the final destination of government dividends is social dividends, because the investors of state-owned enterprises and the real bearers of reform costs are neither the countries established through ideas, nor the governments supported by taxpayers, but every specific citizen and laborer. .If the government pursues dividends without returning these dividends to society in various forms, such dividends may lose their meaning. When it comes to why state-owned enterprises pay dividends to the government (society), the World Bank report believes that at least two problems can be solved.On the one hand, the distribution of dividends by state-owned enterprises to the government (society) is conducive to improving the allocation of key resources such as education and medical care.According to the World Bank's research, if 50% of the profits of China's state-owned enterprises are included in the fiscal budget and allocated to education and health care, government spending on education and health care will increase by 85%.On the other hand, for the developing Chinese economy, excessive use of retained profits for industrial expansion constitutes a disadvantageous factor.The internal capital allocation of enterprises cannot be subject to strict review and supervision like obtaining financing from the financial sector, which is likely to affect investment efficiency.And a lack of scrutiny could lead to pro-cyclical investment, making the economy more prone to wild ups and downs.Nothing left the deepest impression on people in this respect than Sanjiu Group.Due to the blind expansion of the eight major industries including medicine, automobile and food, the group's bank arrears have increased from 9.8 billion yuan at the end of 2003 to about 10.7 billion yuan in 2005.

Starting from the risk assessment of the World Bank on the blind expansion of state-owned enterprises, it is worth asking whether the various blind expansion and self-willedness reflected in state-owned enterprises are also applicable to the government?When the government accumulates excessive social wealth through various channels, will it accumulate the same unfathomable risks, and even make the country "39"? If one is aware of these potential crises, it is not difficult to find that the meaning of hiding wealth from the people or returning wealth to the people is not only reflected in the economic level, but also in the political level, that is, the dispersion effect of wealth will greatly reduce the government’s ability to control wealth and wealth. Operational risk in high positions of power.In fact, "small government, big society" was also the goal pursued by the Chinese government at the beginning of reform and opening up.Regrettably, since the reform of the tax-sharing system in 1994, the size of the government has expanded rapidly again, reaching its peak in 2007. Famous scholar Chen Zhiwu wrote in "How Big is the Government?" "In 2007, China's fiscal and tax revenue increased by 31%, reaching one trillion yuan, accounting for 21% of GDP, equivalent to the disposable income of 100 million urban residents and the net income of 100 million farmers in the same year.In other words, the money spent by the government in a year is equal to the money that 100 million urban residents and 100 million farmers can spend in a year. The Yale University professor compared the structure of wealth sharing between the private sector and the government in China and the United States: in the United States, assets are basically in the hands of private individuals and families, while the US government has basically no productive assets, even a small amount of land.In contrast, over 76% of assets in China are owned by the government, with less than a quarter of private assets. "Because too much income and asset wealth in China is in the hands of the government, instead of more income and more assets being consumed and invested by private individuals, it is difficult to develop the service industry that is close to people's livelihood." Why does the government "get bigger and bigger"?The lack of effective restraint of government power is undoubtedly the main reason.In addition, there are at least two conceptual misunderstandings.One is "the wealth of the country comes before the strength of the people".Since the state is the most important thing in everything, and the government is the "agent" of the state, the competition between the government and the people is not only inevitable, but also has certain legitimacy.Obviously, this tendency is not only reflected in the state's monopoly of certain fields, but also in some specific public policies.In recent years, the government has introduced a lot of regulatory policies, but what is unfortunate is that many of these policies have had little effect, but they have benefited the government as much as possible.For example, in 2006, the 5% business tax charged on second-hand housing within five years was nominally used to control housing prices. Not only did it not fundamentally reverse the rapid rise in housing prices, but it actually increased housing prices by 10% because of this in-and-out tax.Similarly, the increase in stamp duty "to cool down the stock market" made the stamp duty in 2007 exceed 200 billion yuan, an increase of 10 times compared with the previous year.In terms of turnover and tax rate, it exceeds the sum of the past sixteen years. "Management is charging" has now become "regulation is increasing social costs."This kind of regulation that can be "lazy" but also can do its best will inevitably damage the growth of social wealth and the emerging capital market. This ambiguity is also reflected in the role of the "guardian government".Different from the "Night Watchman Government", the "Guardian Government" believes that it is more cost-effective and far-sighted than the "Underage Society".In such an era of "big government, small society", the society is like a child who can't take care of his own finances. He must hand over as much labor income or wealth as possible to the state (government) through various channels, and the state ( government) in unified custody and control.Obviously, here, the government's management of money is not just because of "greed", but also because of a certain "guardian logic", that is, the government is confident that it can spend money instead of the people, and spend it better.However, the common sense of human nature tells us that everyone pays more attention to income and budgets carefully only when spending their own money.Of course, the so-called "money" here is not just currency, but also includes land, aesthetics and other rights and interests that citizens should have. What kind of era connotation does the social dividend of "distributing 1,000 yuan" have?It is not difficult to find that the "distribution" here is actually "return", because compared with the country or the government, every specific, flesh-and-blood and powerful citizen is the real creator of social value.Looking back on the ups and downs of reform in the past 30 years, one of the main threads of China's reform is to return to the people what originally belonged to the people.This is an unfinished journey of value return, a gradual journey of returning power to the people politically and benefiting the people economically.The success or failure of China's reforms ultimately depends on whether the society achieves this key growth. At the 2008 Annual Meeting of the China Development Forum held on March 22, 2008, Xie Fuzhan, director of the National Bureau of Statistics, talked about two views related to agriculture: one is to adjust and straighten out the price comparison relationship between employment and agricultural income, and Increase the subsidy for agriculture to prevent the rapid rise of labor income and reduce the inflationary pressure driven by labor costs; second, vigorously develop agricultural production, increase the import of agricultural products, strictly control the export of agricultural products, reduce the circulation cost of agricultural products, and increase the supply of agricultural products . Many people will be surprised that government officials have curbed the "excessive rise in migrant workers' income" in the name of reducing inflationary pressures.In fact, according to the 2008 "Social Blue Book" released by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the trend of widening income gaps between urban and rural areas, regions, and members of society has not been reversed in the past year.On the whole, a relatively obvious trend is that the proportion of total wages of employees to GDP, the proportion of residents' income and labor income in the distribution of national income have all declined.On the one hand, the proportion of total employee wages in GDP dropped from the end of the "Ninth Five-Year Plan" to 11% at the beginning of the "Eleventh Five-Year Plan"; on the other hand, capital profits increased from the original 20% to 2006. Due to the explosive growth of fiscal revenue, the remuneration income of employed laborers in the secondary and tertiary industries, especially migrant workers, has not increased significantly.In comparison, China's labor compensation accounts for less than a quarter of the US's GDP, while corporate operating profits account for three times that of the US. Theoretically speaking, reducing labor costs will have a certain effect on reducing inflationary pressures.The crux of the problem is that the government cannot repeat the same mistakes when formulating policies, as it did in the past, and shift the cost of national construction and social reform to those individuals and groups who have the least voice.As we all know, in the middle of the 1950s, China established an economic system based on the Stalinist model. According to the theory of "socialist primitive accumulation" of Soviet economists, it did everything possible to reduce the production and living needs of farmers, so that farmers almost unconditionally contributed to the country. Industrialization bears huge costs.This is also the beginning of the "dual division" of urban and rural areas in China since the founding of the People's Republic of China.Therefore, no matter from the perspective of history or social justice, the growth of migrant workers' income in recent years is at best a "recovery increase" rather than a "rapid increase" in the true sense. Relevant statistics also show that the urban-rural gap has widened rather than narrowed in recent years. In 2005, a data that was repeatedly quoted was that the monthly wages of migrant workers in the Pearl River Delta region had only "increased" by 68 yuan in twelve years.If some economists point out that the emergence of China's inflation is mainly related to domestic and foreign factors such as excessive credit, excessive foreign exchange reserves, and appreciation of the renminbi in recent years, all of which cannot be solved by controlling the income of migrant workers, but by controlling the bottom In order to curb inflation with the income of social workers, it is inevitable that some members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference will avoid the most important and take the wrong direction, just like some members of the CPPCC accuse "nail households of pushing up housing prices".In fact, the polarization between the rich and the poor will not only lead to the Matthew effect in the consumption field, but also indirectly drive up prices.People as smart as Wang Shi have also said that the reason why China's housing prices are high is not that some people cannot afford houses, but that some people can afford them.Simply put, the gap between the rich and the poor in China has seriously affected the pricing of livelihood materials. Safeguarding social fairness and justice is undoubtedly the primary responsibility of the government.Although "three defenses" were listed as the focus of the government's work in 2008, the introduction of any policy must follow the principle of social justice and not sacrifice the interests of another part of the people for the so-called overall interests.Otherwise, it’s no wonder that some people praise the current officials for being too “rape”—in order to stimulate consumption, the government raises the wages of civil servants; There is a popular jingle in the society: "Wages rise (grow) as slowly as eyebrows, and prices rise (grow) as fast as beards." In 2007, this beard was probably Osama bin Laden's beard.In fact, what grows (grows) as fast as the beard is the state fiscal revenue.As mentioned earlier, in 2007 China's fiscal taxation increased by 31%, accounting for 21% of GDP.Obviously, whether it is compared with the growth rate of GDP, the rising speed of prices, or the growth rate of fiscal revenue, "the income of migrant workers has risen too fast" is just a myth, so "preventing the income of migrant workers from rising too fast" is bound to be a false proposition . The author previously publicly opposed the CPPCC members' statement that "nail households push up housing prices" in a column in Southern Metropolis Daily.It is worth pondering why today's Chinese society has formed a huge wave of opposition overnight to some views put forward by officials, deputies to the National People's Congress or members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.On the surface, it seems that this has something to do with the "commentary ZTE" or the sudden rise of the public space in recent years, but what I see more is the growth of the concept of social rights in China. Today in the 21st century, China's reform has reached the center of the river, which is reflected in the increasingly fierce game between the state and society.The era when the government ruled everything and the state swallowed society is becoming history.Carefully comparing the two eras before and after, there are many interesting details: in the past, the power of the whole society was gathered to help the country (or the government) punish society and prevent society, so as to be "selfless" and "returning particles to the public."Therefore, when members of the commune "sweat the wool of socialism", they will inevitably be criticized by everyone, and the economic demands of citizens will be suppressed on the moral and political levels.But now, the Chinese society that is gradually awakening and growing up is moving towards "great justice" and unity because of "small selfishness".Many people, regardless of whether they have the opportunity to make their voices heard in the public sphere, have reached a consensus in their hearts that they should not only spare no effort to regulate government behavior, but also not forget to pay attention to the fate of every weak person, and not forget to stand in the face of power. Everyone is weak.When government officials try their best to "sweep society's wool" like nothing else, the society can oppose it with one voice and aboveboard. From the state (government) opposing society’s “sweeping the wool of socialism” to the society’s efforts to oppose the state (government) “sweeping the wool of society”, it’s not just that the word “ism” is missing in semantics, this change is a change since the reform and opening up. The great progress that Chinese society has made is also the condition for Chinese society to make every step of the way and win every step of the way. Without socially oriented dividends and not treating the citizens as shareholders, state-owned enterprises can only be said to be in vain.Any government that claims to be in power for the people can't be proud of the more money it has in its hands. I believe that many people have heard a story comparing the mayors of China and the United States: the Chinese mayor dared to invite the American mayor to come to China, and reimbursed all expenses for coming and going; the American mayor said that he had no money to invite the Chinese mayor to go. America, because he spends all taxpayer money.The same is prostitution, some Chinese officials will "issue invoices", and German mayor Andrea Lange, who was involved in a prostitution scandal at the end of 2007, had to mortgage his computer with prostitutes because he could not make ends meet. On March 5, 2008, Premier Wen Jiabao emphasized people’s livelihood politics as always in his government work report: this year, the central government’s investment in education will increase from 107.6 billion yuan in the previous year to 156.2 billion yuan, and the financial subsidy for cooperative medical care will increase from 40 yuan per person. The increase to 80 yuan, an additional 16.7 billion yuan in the central budget for health services, an additional 1.7 billion yuan for the construction of low-rent housing, and so on.Just the day before, the "Opinions on Deepening the Reform of the Administrative Management System" was published.The reason why people's livelihood politics and modern administration have been highlighted one after another, and together point to 2020, is precisely because people's livelihood and modern administration are inseparable. It should be noted that although people often expect the government to take responsibility when it comes to people's livelihood issues, this does not mean that the government must do everything by itself to solve people's livelihood problems, because the society should do more, and it should be more important. Protagonist driving the change of the times.Modern political theory believes that a promising social government should pursue "big responsibility with little power".The so-called "big responsibility" essentially means that in order to achieve social fairness and justice, the government must shoulder more responsibilities for people's livelihood, so that those living at the bottom will not be abandoned due to the passage of time, and even the poorest people can Enjoy basic rights such as medical care, education and housing; the so-called "little power" means that the government should use the power in its hands humbly, not only to be subject to social supervision, but also to fully decentralize power, so that the society has as much freedom as possible to create wealth and enjoy It provides individuals and families with the opportunity to directly improve their own lives through independent or group struggle, and indirectly promotes the improvement of people's livelihood in the whole society as a whole. In the 1980s, Cui Jian's "Nothing" sang the voice of an era.Today's Chinese people have bid farewell to poverty as a whole, and the society is constantly reorganizing meaning in the process of differentiation and fission.After the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixteenth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China put forward the goal of "harmonious society", the report of the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China specifically summarized "people's livelihood" as enabling all citizens to "learn to be taught, work to be paid, sick to be treated, old to be cared for and Have a place to live."And these five "somethings" are also summarized as "the hometown of five things" and people place high hopes on them. Thirty years of reform and opening up is also thirty years for China to rebuild national ethics.After going through the stormy journey, people have gradually reached a consensus that in order to build a just, open, civilized, and prosperous society, it is necessary to return power to the people in terms of political construction, so that all power can be exercised in the sun; The government no longer acts as an athlete and a referee, and competes with the people for profit; in terms of social construction, social members are allowed full autonomy and self-organization, and social organizations are regarded as the necessary relief for government organizations; in terms of cultural construction, society is given full creative freedom.Only in this way, the simple and unpretentious ideal of "a land of five existences" in this century will not be reduced to a "land of nothingness" again.