『第 7 楼』:
一个几乎完全没有人民福利的国家
使用 LLM 解释/回答一下
听近两年访问英国的人说：和中国全然不同，在英国，人们几乎从不谈论如何赚钱、发财这一类话题。人们谈得最多的一个词汇，就是“福利”。我知道，北欧国家被称为“福利国家”，其实，在所谓资本主义的故乡西欧，特别是英国，这个资本主义最古老的堡垒，人们所关心的，都已经不再是“资本主义”的古老问题，己不再是什么劳资问题、贫富问题，也不再是什么剩余价值理论什么的，而是原来似乎属于“社会主义”的那个话题 —— 福利。
人们向政府要福利。
既然政府向人民要选票，那么，“人民福利”就是政府的本分。
西方的“资产阶级国家”，竟然和中国的“社会主义政府”全相反。
真是天地翻覆，世道大变。尽管我国的关于西方国家的教科书基本依然如故，但实际上，人家已经和中国人想的完全不一样了。我听说在西北欧的富裕小国里，人们根本没有发财的愿望。据报道去那里的中国人问他们：你们不想多挣些钱吗？他们竟诧异地反问：我要钱干什么？
听听，人家居然这样说：我要钱干什么！
这正是我们中国人怎么也理解不了的。
据说，人家回答：我们生活水平很高，什么都不缺，教育、医疗都是免费的，房子是自己的，邻里关系都很融洽等等。如果工资有些结余，我们就去外国旅游，把钱花掉。
看来，他们北欧人真的没有冻馁之虞，没有饥饿的威胁，没有对贫困的担忧。这是一种什么生活呀？我真想不出，难道就是以前中国人常说的、那个美好无比的“共产主义社会”吗？
所以在我看来，福利，可以理解为“人民的幸福”；但在中国的经济学家们看起来，也可理解为低效、“大锅饭”、政府入不敷出、国家混不下去……。
前不久，法国政府出台《新劳工法》，由于工会和学生会强烈抵制，开始嘴硬的法国政府，最后还是收回了这个法案。人民获得了胜利。没几分钟，香港凤凰台何亮亮马上评论：这次法国没有赢家，收回《新劳工法》就还是要“吃大锅饭”，因此，法国的经济将没有竞争力云云。
这正是中国“主流经济学家”的声音。
我们中国，与西欧北美国家相反，目前已经成了个完全没有一丁点儿人民福利的国家。国家的财政收入，除了用于救灾，沾一点“福利”的边以外，简直找不到还有什么大的支出与人民福利有关。义务教育，要人民支付学费（现在表示要9年中小学免费了，让我们拭目以待；我想，肯定，全国中小学校不会停止收费的，国家给的那点钱，哪够现今挥霍惯了的校长教师花的？）；医疗，吆喝说要减轻人民负担，但又是两年“流水落花春去也”，一切都依然故我；福利分房，早已经没有了；国家也没有廉价租房，可见并不肯拿出一点钱来解决新就业者们的住房福利；城市交通，也已经没有福利补助了；冬贮大白菜之类的福利，当然也早没有了；就是北方城市的取暖问题，国家也准备不再有一点点福利支出了，而且费用高的令人称奇，热力公司提供的暖气费用，比人们用煤炉子取暖的费用，要高上几十倍。这合乎经济规律吗？不管！看来国家就是要省下任何用于“福利”的费用！
我不知道国家省出这些钱来干什么？
对，搞经济建设，搞项目，搞高楼大厦……
项目多了，“少数人”就富起来了！而富人们就可以享受高楼大厦，就可以在宽阔的高速公路上开跑车了，多有意义啊！
那中国的“改革”得多有面子啊！
对于一个社会，最大的问题是，如果没有政府的社会福利支出，穷人的日子会很难过。这是不人道的，而社会也将因此失去稳定。显然，完全生活无着的人，是很容易走上歧路的。而如果巨量失去工作、失去土地、失去生活来源的人们存在，又得不到足够的救济和福利，那前景，只能是天下大乱。
我认为，中国的不稳定，就源于人民得不到任何福利。
有的中国人可能不服气，说你说的那是欧洲的情况。而中国人的理想是美国。美国人追求发财，和中国人一样。
但美国政府到底是什么样呢？据报道：
在美国，政府的首要职责，是为丧失劳动力者和失业者提供安全保障，为老年人和穷人提供医疗照顾，为穷人提供简易住房和适当食物。美国政府在社会安全、福利和与此有关的社会事业上花的钱也是最多的。政府第二大开销，是国防经费。第三是教育经费。
所以，如果我们像以前那样把“福利”作为“社会主义”的一个标记物，我们就会发现：
就是美国，也没有像今天中国的“社会主义”这么少。
在美国，一方面是各地政府来关照穷人，另一方面，遍布各地的教会和富人们也大力举办慈善事业。这样，各方面都在努力，美国的贫富问题，根本没有像中国这样尖锐。
在中国呢，事情相反，政府在“改革”的名义下，不断取消各种福利；和他们一起行动的，是中国的富人，他们竟有人声称，就是不会给穷人什么！显得气粗、而且豪迈。
不少人以为，中国是社会主义，而且几乎是世界上唯一的、正牌的社会主义。所以，中国怎么搞，都是社会主义；外国人怎么搞，都是资本主义！这其实是天大的误解。
所以，一位在美国住了近30年的朋友对我说：世界上人家都是“社会主义”，只有中国不是！
所以，我想，中国的“福利”现状如此，中国要能稳定，那才有鬼！
Hearing from people who visited Britain in the past two years: Different from China, in Britain, people hardly ever talk about topics like how to make money and get rich. The most frequently talked - about word among people is "welfare". I know that Nordic countries are called "welfare states". In fact, in Western Europe, especially Britain, the cradle of capitalism, people's concerns are no longer the old problems of "capitalism", no longer labor - capital problems, wealth - poverty problems, nor the theory of surplus value and so on. Instead, it is the topic that originally seemed to belong to "socialism" — welfare.
People demand welfare from the government.
Since the government asks for votes from the people, then "people's welfare" is the duty of the government.
The "bourgeois states" in the West are completely opposite to the "socialist government" in China.
It is really a world - turning and great change of the times. Although the textbooks in our country about Western countries are basically still the same, in fact, they are completely different from what the Chinese think. I heard that in the rich small countries in northwestern Europe, people have no desire to get rich at all. It is reported that Chinese people asked them there: Don't you want to earn more money? They even asked in surprise: What do I need money for?
Listen, they actually said: What do I need money for!
This is what we Chinese can't understand at all.
It is said that they answered: Our living standard is very high, we lack nothing, education and medical care are free, houses are our own, neighborhood relations are very harmonious and so on. If there is some surplus in wages, we will travel abroad and spend the money.
It seems that people in Northern Europe really have no worry about freezing and starving, no threat of hunger, no worry about poverty. What kind of life is this? I really can't think of it. Is it the so - called "communist society" that the Chinese often talked about before?
So in my opinion, welfare can be understood as "people's happiness"; but in the eyes of Chinese economists, it can also be understood as inefficiency, "iron rice bowl", the government's income not covering its expenses, the country being unable to get on...
Not long ago, the French government introduced the "New Labor Law". Due to the strong resistance of trade unions and student unions, the French government, which was initially stubborn, finally withdrew this bill. The people won. A few minutes later, He Liangliang from Phoenix TV in Hong Kong immediately commented: There is no winner in this case in France. Withdrawing the "New Labor Law" will still mean "eating the iron rice bowl", so the economy of France will have no competitiveness and so on.
This is the voice of China's "mainstream economists".
In our country, China is opposite to Western European and North American countries. At present, it has become a country with no people's welfare at all. Except for being related to "welfare" a little bit in disaster relief, the national financial revenue can hardly find any other major expenditures related to people's welfare. For compulsory education, people have to pay tuition fees (now it is said that 9 - year primary and secondary school education will be free, let's wait and see; I think, definitely, primary and secondary schools all over the country will not stop charging fees. The little money given by the state is not enough for the principals and teachers who have been used to spending lavishly nowadays?); for medical care, it is shouted that people's burden will be lightened, but after two years of "things flowing like water and flowers fading away", everything is still the same; welfare housing distribution has long been gone; the state also has no low - cost rental housing, which shows that it is not willing to take out any money to solve the housing welfare of newly employed people; for urban transportation, there are no welfare subsidies either; the welfare of storing Chinese cabbages in winter and so on has certainly long been gone; even for the heating problem in northern cities, the state is going to have no welfare expenditure at all, and the heating cost provided by the heating company is surprisingly high, which is dozens of times higher than the cost of people heating with coal stoves. Does this conform to economic laws? No matter! It seems that the state just wants to save any expenses for "welfare"!
I don't know what the state saves these money for?
Yes, for economic construction, for projects, for high - rise buildings...
With more projects, "a small number of people" will get rich! And the rich people can enjoy high - rise buildings and drive sports cars on the wide expressways. How meaningful it is!
How face - saving China's "reform" must be!
For a society, the biggest problem is that if there is no social welfare expenditure of the government, the life of the poor will be very difficult. This is inhumane, and the society will lose stability because of this. Obviously, people who are completely destitute are very likely to go astray. And if a large number of people who lose their jobs, lose their land and lose their sources of livelihood exist and do not get enough relief and welfare, the prospect can only be that the world will be in great chaos.
I think that the instability in China stems from the fact that the people do not get any welfare.
Some Chinese people may be unconvinced and say that what you said is the situation in Europe. And the ideal of Chinese people is the United States. Americans pursue getting rich, just like Chinese people.
But what is the US government like? It is reported that:
In the United States, the primary duty of the government is to provide safety guarantees for the labor - disabled and the unemployed, to provide medical care for the elderly and the poor, and to provide simple housing and appropriate food for the poor. The US government also spends the most money on social security, welfare and related social undertakings. The second largest expenditure of the government is the defense expenditure. The third is the education expenditure.
So, if we still take "welfare" as a marker of "socialism" as before, we will find that:
Even the United States does not have as little as China's "socialism" today.
In the United States, on the one hand, local governments take care of the poor, and on the other hand, churches and the rich all over the country also vigorously hold charity undertakings. In this way, all aspects are making efforts, and the wealth - poverty problem in the United States is not as acute as in China at all.
In China, on the contrary, the government is constantly canceling various welfare benefits in the name of "reform"; together with them, the rich people in China even claim that they will not give anything to the poor! They seem arrogant and bold.
Many people think that China is socialist, and it is almost the only genuine socialism in the world. So, no matter how China does it, it is socialism; no matter how foreigners do it, it is capitalism! This is actually a great misunderstanding.
So, a friend who has lived in the United States for nearly 30 years said to me: In the world, others are "socialist", only China is not!
So, I think, with the current situation of welfare in China, it is strange that China can be stable!
|
