On “run” and return to the previous 30 years, some of my views!

Spread the love

Author: wenbolingsource: wenboling2020 (id: wenboling2020)

Combine the latest news with the wind.

According to relevant reports, Liu qiangdong of JD has cashed in 6.6 billion yuan in the past two months and bought a super luxury house in Europe, while Ma Yun plays golf in Mallorca, Spain, and parks a super luxury yacht worth 200million dollars on the beach.

No matter what will happen in the future, people are not fully profitable now, and some of their assets have been enriched.

Xin Qiji of the Southern Song Dynasty wrote a few words: “don’t say that the perch is good to enjoy. The west wind is blowing. The season eagle is not coming back? Ask for the fields to say goodbye. I’m afraid I’ll be ashamed to see him. Liu Lang is talented.”

Now the two big men would rather ask for land and shelter than Lang Liu’s question. I don’t know whether there will be any thought of Ulva perch when the west wind blows in the future.

The big man has the big man’s wealth, and the small man has the small man’s wealth.

Since the outbreak this year, embellishment has become a hot word. On major social platforms, netizens who used to discuss whether to embellish, how to embellish, and what to do with embellishment.

This year’s epidemic, the economy and the events in Tangshan and Henan have greatly consumed the credibility accumulated in the two years of anti epidemic, leading to the disillusionment of some people, and the sight of thousands of miles of rivers and mountains is no longer red.

As a result, embellishment has become an extreme trend. The big guys want to embellish, and some small people want to embellish.

In recent years, the housing price and internal turnover have also created another extreme atmosphere, that is, many people hope to change the current economic model and return to the era of public ownership in the previous three decades, so that the state can rely on the distribution of houses and jobs from birth to death, and they do not have to worry too much about themselves.

But the question is, can I go back?

Obviously I can’t go back.

The success of a reform must conform to certain social needs, and then push the boat along the river. In the process of reform, a large number of beneficiary groups have been cultivated and the reform has been thoroughly consolidated.

Jet Li once said in an interview about his psychological changes.

After filming Shaolin Temple in 1982, someone in Hong Kong offered him HK $3million to make a film, but the relevant departments did not allow him to return to his original unit for work. No matter how high his status was, he had to get a salary and could not be market-oriented.

Two years later, Jet Li worked with the Hong Kong team to make movies. The Hong Kong people were 15000 yuan a month, and Jet Li was 100 yuan a month. He thought it was not cost-effective and slowly went to Hong Kong to make movies.

His psychological changes come from the strong contrast at home and abroad, as well as the mismatch between market pricing and actual income.

If we go back to the era of public ownership in the previous 30 years, unless the people do not have economic and trade exchanges with overseas countries, and only the state comes forward to do trade, then all people in China are the same, and there is no strong comparison with their overseas counterparts, which is the possibility of success.

Otherwise, anyone who has a skill will not support everyone being the same, and it is impossible to cultivate a huge beneficiary group.

Without a beneficiary group, how can a reform be successful? It can’t even be started.

In fact, to some extent, the fairness of the first three decades is the fairness achieved by the public power formed by the organizational power and the state machine, and by forcibly wiping out the gap between the rich and the poor in the way of socialist transformation.

Since it is achieved by public power, while achieving fairness at the economic and social levels, there is great unfairness between people at the power level.

The beneficiaries of this unfairness are cadres, secretaries and officials.

That’s why the teacher said that if he gave the group secretary a pack of cigarettes and two bottles of wine, he could go through the back door. The group secretary was the same as the local emperor.

The teacher knows this unfairness. He tried to change it but could not.

Since the reform and opening up, there has actually been a dark line in the process of our country, that is, to use the power of the market economy to balance the absolute public power, and to use the unfairness of economic interests to eliminate the unfairness of political power.

The result is that the state does not allocate houses and jobs, and you also have the right to choose your job and residence. With soaring house prices, it is difficult to find jobs, but you can use the Internet to scold a local government official for inaction.

In the same sentence, there must be gains and losses, and there must be gains and losses. Nothing can meet all the needs of all people.

Here we can sum up two points.

Those who want and can benefit from the market economy are the biggest beneficiaries. Their social status and quality of life in capitalist countries may be 10 times and 100 times stronger than those in socialist countries.

These people want to profit. I don’t support it but understand it. After all, people are seeking to maximize their own interests.

However, the ordinary working class should not join in the fun. You can’t live well in socialist countries, especially in capitalist countries that stress personal interests. You are still a bull and a horse.

Those who want to return to full public ownership in the previous 30 years have a high probability that they have not benefited much from the market economy and have been exhausted in the recent years. In fact, this idea is also a pursuit of maximizing personal interests.

But thirty years before you were encouraged to go back, you had to check whether there were any people in your family who held public power.

If so, it can really maximize the benefits. If not, you are making wedding clothes for others. What do you mean?

There is nothing teachers can do about this. Are you better than teachers?

Therefore, profit is the privilege of the biggest beneficiary of the market economy. Returning to the previous 30 years is the privilege of the biggest beneficiary of public power. Ordinary people like you and me are most suitable for living in the current public-private mixed economy society.

Public power should respect market rules, and market subjects should obey the leadership of public power.

If you have a skill, you can ask the market to set a reasonable price without completely looking at the eyes of officials. If the vulnerable groups are bullied in the workplace, you can also report and complain, so as not to be completely manipulated by the capitalists.

Not so perfect, but not so bad.

Recently, the news about liuqiangdong and Mayun came out. Many people on the Internet defended their grievances and said that they had been wronged too much.

How can I remember that at the time of anti-monopoly, the whole people cheered?

To fight against injustice now is essentially to project the dissatisfaction caused by the economic downturn onto Mayun and liuqiangdong, imagining what would happen if there was no antitrust.

Fighting for the injustice of Ma Yun and Liu qiangdong is actually the same meaning as wanting to go back to the previous 30 years. It’s just a different carrier to express dissatisfaction with reality.

These two events are the pros and cons of the same thing.

But there is nothing wrong with antitrust.

Since ancient times, China has been emphasizing agriculture and restraining commerce. What it suppresses is that the monopoly party has the ability to gain access to the public power, and what it focuses on is the small farmers and small businesses responsible for production.

Just because Shen Wansan was exiled, Shen Yishi failed to participate in the political struggle, and Liu qiangdong and Ma Yun were lonely, we cannot deny the justice of focusing on agriculture and suppressing commerce and anti-monopoly.

These are two different things.

If there were no anti-monopoly in the previous two years, now those tycoons do not know what to develop into. Is it really good for those enterprises that monopolize the market and have the ability to gain access to public power?

If there are monopolistic enterprises everywhere, what is the difference between the social animals in 996 and the older farmers who give cigarettes and alcohol to the Secretary of the brigade?

I want to return to the public ownership era of the previous 30 years and be the master of the country, but I don’t want to give cigarettes and wine to the Secretary of the brigade. If you want to compete freely in a market economy, you will be distressed by the losers of antitrust.

How can there be such a good thing?

It is possible to have the idea of both wanting and demanding, but it does not exist in reality.

Therefore, for ordinary people like you and me, the current economic and social pattern is the optimal solution after the multi-party game, whether it is a vertical comparison with history or a horizontal comparison with foreign countries.

Those who want to moisten can be moistened. Once you are iron, you can’t keep the heart moistened, but you just want to go back to the previous 30 years.

If you want to live a good life, you still need to calm down and get through this bitter period. Maybe there will be a technological breakthrough or “ownerless wasteland” for everyone to reclaim.

I still have expectations for the future.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.