The Chinese government's development goal of common prosperity last year caused some controversy.
Supporters value economic fairness and justice, while opponents believe that it will hinder economic development.
Regardless of whether they support or oppose it, many commentators admit that common prosperity will have some negative effects on the economy.
However, American investor and Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio offered a different view.
The US media Bloomberg recently reported that Dalio said at a business conference on Monday (10th) that the United States and advanced Western countries should emulate China's common prosperity policy, believing that this is not only for fairness, but also for economic development. .
The mainland's launch of the Common Wealth concept last year caused a lot of controversy.
Common prosperity and economic development
Dalio explained, "You can't tell where the talent comes from, it's quite possible that they come from the poor," and shared prosperity can not only improve society and make it more equitable, but also provide opportunities to discover grassroots talent.
Therefore, China's common prosperity policy can actually tap more talents and give back to the society, so that the economy can get greater development.
He also said not long ago that he doesn't mind paying more tax as long as the tax is used properly to improve education and productivity.
The background of this is that in advanced societies such as the United States, the social system buries the development opportunities at the grassroots level.
Because they don't have enough money to pay for expensive higher education, most people's futures are limited to their tiers, creating intergenerational poverty.
In the United States, especially the black and Hispanic population, many have experienced the problem of limiting intergenerational poverty and cannot escape the social class of the original family.
Equal Opportunities to Unleash the Power of the Grassroots
The concept of common prosperity has attracted a lot of criticism from capitalists since its launch.
George Soros, a financial tycoon familiar to Hong Kong people who once attacked the Hong Kong dollar, publicly criticized China's policy as killing "the goose that lays golden eggs", and it would be a huge mistake to continue investing in China.
Likewise, many Hong Kongers accustomed to Western capitalism are also full of doubts about the common prosperity of the mainland.
To a certain extent, the vested interests occupying the highest level of capital control most of the resources in society, and advocating a fairer common prosperity will inevitably bring them losses.
Their opposition is to be expected.
However, many people misunderstand that this is equivalent to causing damage to the overall economy.
Dalio is just a reminder that fairness and justice are not just a value, but an important way to unlock the economic potential of the grassroots.
Compared with the high cost of higher education in the United States, the cost of higher education in Hong Kong is relatively reasonable, but the differences in education caused by economic background still exist.
For example, the 2016 Hong Kong Council of Social Service's "Young Adult Poverty and Life Improvement Opportunity Study" showed that only 19.7% of children (aged 18 to 24) of parents whose incomes are in the lowest 10% of Hong Kong have been enrolled or enrolled. Enrolling in a university degree program; however, the parental income group is in the highest 10% group in Hong Kong, and the proportion is as high as 47.3%.
Only 19.7% of children (aged 18 to 24) of the group with the lowest 10% income in Hong Kong have studied or are studying a university degree program; however, the proportion of the group with the highest income 10% in Hong Kong is as high as 47.3% %.
And economic injustice is manifesting elsewhere.
For example, in Hong Kong, there is a big difference between people who own a building and those who don’t own a building. Those who own a building don’t have to worry about rent. Even owners who own more than one property can collect rent to support themselves, but those who don’t have a building have to bear the high cost of rent. rents, severely limiting their spending power.
As a result, some of the economic vitality and funds of the society have been locked in the real estate circle for a long time, and many grassroots have little money to spend.
According to a survey conducted by the Kwai Chung Subdivided Housing Residents Alliance in August last year, the average rental expense of private subdivided housing households accounted for 53.6% of their income, and even the overall households accounted for 39.8%. Especially at the grassroots level.
If the housing problem in Hong Kong can be changed, it can be regarded as a way of common prosperity.
At that time, the younger generation will no longer be trapped in high housing prices. Those who can afford it can save a lot of money to buy a house, and the grassroots can also save on rent. Naturally, they will have greater spending power, which is beneficial to the overall economic development.
Moreover, young people do not have to be trapped in "construction of housing", they have more space to develop their creativity and entrepreneurship, which is also helpful for economic vitality.
Common prosperity is the new mission of the new era | Zheng Yongnian's ideology is not the reason for the chaos, the US tax on the rich is just a trade-off, and it is a measure of occupation of Wall Street for ten years | The counterattack of the left-wing trend of thought and the pursuit of "the freest economy" is not as good as thinking about how to "common rich"