First of all, competition always happens.
Professor Zhou Qiren described himself as a street vendor. Writing a book and giving lectures just puts things there and takes them away if you like. I'll try to put some dross out and see if I can attract Mei-yu.
Because of the similarity of human beings, most people like common ground, such as comfortable houses, exquisite meals and generous jobs. What you like is often liked by others, so useful resources are scarce. In order to allocate these limited resources, we always have to compete in some way.
Second, there is actually no fairest way.
What kind of games have we had in history? Violence is still a common way of competition. People fight, small groups fight, big groups fight. Violence never seems to affect human society. Intelligence is also a common method. Various entrance examinations, Wen Pin certificates and imperial examinations are mainly based on the application of intelligence level; On qualifications For many employees in the system, members of the traditional family should not be unfamiliar. It is not only leaders who take the lead in doing big and small things, but also various activities on holidays inevitably emphasize seniority. Random distribution, the older generation of people should have experienced the lottery housing distribution, people living in big cities should be more familiar with the lottery car, and so on. There are many ways of competition based on different standards, so I won't list them one by one. Of course, people with the strongest market atmosphere get the highest price.
A sense of fairness is what most people pursue, so which way is the fairest? There may be great differences of opinion. The weak feel that competitive marriage is unfair. Active people think dancing and writing are unfair. Newcomers find seniority boring. Those who are in a hurry will think that lottery tickets occupy the toilet, and those who are short of money will think that the price is too cheap. Obviously, fairness is not something that people with different positions can easily acquire * * * knowledge, but in order to avoid getting out of control, we still have to choose one.
Third, it is more efficient to recognize money.
No matter what kind of competition is adopted, it always costs real money. It takes time to exercise muscles, pay tuition for reading, slowly tolerate senior students, and waste time waiting in line. The similarity between these efforts is that your efforts are of little value to others. For example, Tulok, one of the founders of the Public Choice School, said that it is of great significance for an Indian to spend years of savings to find a relationship to become a customs officer after finishing his college studies, but it is difficult for other people in society to get any benefits from it, and such resources are wasted.
Relatively speaking, the higher the price, the higher the price. Except what is written in the criminal law, if a person wants to make money, he always needs to provide valuable goods or services to others. Others in society can also benefit from the remaining ways in the transaction. Compared with being forced to learn or practice martial arts, making money through the way he is good at has a broader space for making choices, so we are relatively more efficient in competing with money.
Fourth, what about the poor?
When it comes to money, some people always think that it is too little to compare with the wrong person, so they have to ask that common question. Everything you say is good, but "what about the poor?" Are there really so many poor people? Literally, poverty means exhaustion, and the end of the road means no way out. Is it true that someone is desperate and can't make money at all? In the era when Henry Ford produced Model T cars by assembly line, 65,438+023 of his production workers were disabled or amputated, 4 were blind, 207 were blind in one eye, 37 were deaf-mute, 60 were epileptic, and 4 had no legs and hands. How many of our friends who think they are poor today will be worse than the situation described above?
If you temporarily fall on the side of poor economic level, you don't have to worry about the form of distribution according to capital. Since the industrial revolution, the absolute poverty of production efficiency has actually decreased, and the number of people who spend less than 1 dollar per day has dropped from 25% 50 years ago to less than 5% today. It is much more difficult to starve yourself in this era than it was 300 years ago. The gap between the rich and the poor is actually narrowing, and the Gini coefficient of life expectancy, education investment and consumption amount is declining; At the end of last century, 70% poor families in the United States owned cars, of which 27% owned more than two. Generally speaking, poor families have more than two color TVs, as well as microwave ovens, air conditioners and dishwashers. Most poor children are overnourished. ...
So even if you are a "poor person" temporarily, as long as the society is progressing, everyone can get much better material enjoyment than the middle-class families in the past. As long as the cake is bigger, even the bottom cake will be divided more than before, and our experience in the past 40 years has well explained how big the cake can be, which often depends on what rules I use to divide the cake. ...
The main reference book "Xue Zhaofeng Economics Lecture".