Chapter 25 25 wealth

Wealth refers to the material conditions created by human beings on which life depends.There are two restrictions before the condition of this sentence.One is what life depends on, such as food, not icebergs in the Arctic. The former is wealth, but the latter is not.But it is also difficult to draw a clear line, because some things, such as moonlight, can obviously live without them, but those who long for "a thousand miles of cicadas together" may not see it that way.Human creation also has similar problems, coal mines.Open-air, not created by human beings, we also regard it as wealth.The material condition is more complicated. Brain power, transformed into technology, is the source of wealth production, so it can also be regarded as a more valuable wealth.These speculative troubles are all caused by scholarly habits such as definitions and demarcations; in order to avoid troubles, it is better to start with common sense, saying that what we call wealth generally refers to things that can or need to be bought with money.In this way, as big as a Boeing 747, as small as a button, as busy as food, as idle as a potted flower, as solid as steel, as ethereal as a manuscript (if there is a publishing organization willing to print it), it will all become wealth.

There are infinite types of wealth.Some are necessary for everyone, like food and clothing; some are not, like books and gold rings.Generally speaking, or in terms of the whole society, from the lowest survival to the so-called greatest happiness that people can think of and obtain, wealth is inseparable.Therefore, when it comes to Qi Zhiping, one of the most important tasks is to create enough wealth, that is, to ensure that everyone in the group can not only survive but also live a happy life.Can it be said that the more the better?In theory, there may be problems, because too much, on the one hand, it will be difficult to store and get rid of, and on the other hand, it will cause troubles.In fact, it is okay to say this, because at least in the not-too-distant future, we can only worry about shortages, not problems.Therefore, it is always right to talk about governing the country, to develop production as much as possible, and to increase wealth.The omnidirectional problem is caused by oligosum and unevenness.

The phenomenon of widowhood is obvious. As far as food is concerned, there are too many monks and too little food, such as the so-called three-year hardship experienced by people above middle age.In addition to filling the stomach, human desires are infinitely many, such as filling the stomach with vegetables, rice noodles, no worries, but wanting to pack prawns and chicken nuggets, sometimes, yes, but it is impossible in the sky; or like being full and warm, If you have enough energy, you still want to add a gold necklace to your neck, but not everyone can do it.Some people, even quite a few people, cannot satisfy their desires because of scarcity, that is, the amount of wealth is not enough.If there is not enough, if you want to become more, it is most important to figure out the reason for not having enough.When it comes to the reason, it is very complicated; there are unspeakable secrets in the complexity, for example, the reason is a person, and this person happens to be authoritative, and the feudal dogma says that there is no wrong father in the world, so we have to push it to other aspects.The causal relationship is confused, and it is even more difficult to seek more from less.Besides, the causal relationship is clear, and there are many big ones.Just say what everyone thinks.It said that there are too many monks but less porridge. The amount is based on the ratio, which obviously contains a big truth, that is, if there are not many monks, porridge is enough.This cannot fail to touch on the population issue.Some people only see the power of a large number of people, but fail to see that the productivity is not unlimited but the belly must be filled. This is ignorance, and the result will inevitably lead to the evil result of more monks and less porridge.Fortunately, through experience and wisdom, it is now spread all over the world, and children as young as three feet know how serious the problem of rapid population growth is.More important than knowing is the way.The most fundamental thing here is to improve education, so as to break the long-standing tenet of happiness for thousands of years.But this is not a three- to five-year effort, so we have to be eager for quick success and rely on the law.In my opinion, for the benefit of a large number of people and a long period of time, the law might as well be stricter. For example, in addition to limiting a pair to "at most" one child, it seems that the principle of eugenics can also be considered, that is, it is determined that genetics will not be conducive to the next generation. , promised to marry but not allowed to have children, and so on.In addition to the population problem, the reasons for the lack of wealth are also biased towards people. For example, the people are not motivated to work, and in terms of management, large and small measures are not appropriate.People's hearts are different, and they are different, no matter how good and thorough the method is, there will always be some people who are willing to be lazy and not willing to work.When the adults are in charge of the big government, they only ask the majority to do their jobs well. As for the very few, as long as they do not break the law, they just turn a blind eye.What I am most afraid of is that most of them will not do a good job, so we must quickly find out the reason.The reason may be due to nature, but it is natural to like leisure and hate work, and it is also natural to want to live and live decently. Therefore, we should look at the management (in a broad sense, up to and including education) to find the reason.To give a prominent example, if Gu Tinglin and Li Shizhen are forced to clean the toilets and supervised by Red Guard heroes, it will be difficult to increase their wealth.There are also objective reasons for the lack of wealth. In addition to the right time and location, there is another big one, which has emerged in the past hundred years, namely science and technology.That is to say, in terms of agriculture, as a result of scientific farming, the yield can be increased tenfold or eightfold.So, all in all, if we want to change wealth from less to more, we must find ways in many ways, and all methods must be based on science.

In addition to the total amount, there is also the question of how to balance the points. Although the severity may not increase, the complexity is much more.Here are some of the more important ones. First, wealth includes almost unlimited categories, what to produce more, what to produce less, and how to adjust it properly.In principle, planning is better than laissez-faire.Let it go, in order to make money, some people will grow opium instead of cotton.Planning is also inseparable from principles, but it is quite difficult to determine this principle. For example, benefiting the group (including each person in it) seems to be a quite reasonable principle, but according to this principle, we cannot deduce that tobacco planting and The measures to open a cigarette factory come.In such matters, we have to adopt the principle of taking both ideals and reality into account. The method is to first calculate by experts, distinguish between the primary and secondary needs, draw an ideal blueprint for production, and stipulate specific measures according to the blueprint. Yes, those with a big relationship try to adjust to reality, and those with a small relationship relax.In this way, for example, food, clothing and housing are guaranteed. Some people still want to dangle on the sidewalk with a pipe in their mouth and carry a birdcage, so that they can supply both shredded tobacco and birdcages. Just resolutely stop it.

Second, there is an unavoidable big problem between production and enjoyment, which is how to distribute it reasonably.There is no big problem in terms of types, because a person's needs are always a small part of the thousands of types.Another example is that a car is not broken and is useful. Many people don't want it, or dare not, because they can't afford it.There is a big question hidden in this "what's the big deal", which is that the distribution of categories can be adjusted by the money bag: if you need it, if you can afford it, you want it; otherwise, you don't want it.The big problem in theory is, assuming that distribution can be made according to a strict plan, should there be an equalization of quantities (or in terms of money).This, assuming that it can be done, seems to be in line with the principle of equality. A monk and a bowl of porridge can be calm, right?But this is obviously ideal, or utopian, because the fact is that it cannot be done and it should not be.There are many reasons.Taking food as an example, Jiao Da needs a large amount, while Lin Daiyu needs a small amount, so the average distribution is unreasonable.In addition, people have different abilities and contributions, and the average distribution will become unreasonable.As a last resort, we have to abandon the principle of average and change it to the principle of fairness, as we often say about getting paid according to work.At first glance, this method seems to be consistent with the principle of justice, and it seems to be invulnerable. In fact, the problems are not small but also many.Even if it doesn't come from theory, we know that reality is often more rigid than theory, and therefore harder to deal with.In fact, only the obvious ones are mentioned, such as unlimited types of labor, minus the unprofitable (such as lifting cages and birds) and harmful (such as stealing), ignoring, such as a farmer harvesting wheat for half a day, a petty official for half a day, and fixed remuneration , Equal pay or division?If the score is high, who should be higher?There are more practical difficulties. For example, it has been stipulated that the work of university professors should be paid more than that of restaurant waiters. Can it really be done?Although this is an individual small phenomenon, if you think it is unreasonable and want to change it to be reasonable, it may affect the whole body.So it will be a big problem.There is also a problem that is not necessarily big but quite fundamental. It is determined by who gives a certain reward for a certain job. Who will not treat others more favorably than others?It's always hard to feel like what you're doing doesn't matter.In addition, there is another situation that there will always be some people who are unable to work due to various objective reasons (not counting because of old age), but also have the right to live. Therefore, at least within this small range, we have to give up The principle of remuneration according to work is replaced by the principle of humanitarian justice.

This in turn shows that the principle of humanitarianism is more fundamental than the principle of remuneration according to work, which can often produce guiding principles.This, as far as I can think of at the moment, has the following items.First, wealth is the most important condition to ensure the survival and happiness of the living people. When it comes to Qi Zhiping, we should try our best to ask everyone to have a moderate amount (at least to be able to maintain warmth), and to guarantee it (not to arbitrarily confiscate).The second is to add some equal principles to the principle of fairness, such as implementing pay according to work, and it is best to ensure that the disparity between the rich and the poor is not too great.The third is to resolutely stop those who support others from harming others. For example, using financial resources to harm others, enslave others, and exploit others are not allowed.Fourth, there will always be some people who are unable (or even unwilling) to obtain wealth by themselves, so they have to give relief according to humanitarian principles.Finally, keep in mind that people are alive, they form a group, and they will change from time to time, so any well-considered measures will not be foolproof, so the general corresponding way should be: on the one hand, strive for the best; If the sporadic and trivial things fail to meet the ideal, it is all right to be content with almost.