At present, more and more people are advocating the benefits of "distributing money to all people", "distributing money" can stimulate consumption, and "distributing money" can improve income distribution. Many people turn a blind eye to the many disadvantages of "giving money" and avoid talking about it.
"Allowing money to all people" may have an immediate effect on stimulating consumption, and it can also play a role in improving income distribution, but "all people's money" will bring many adverse consequences:
First, it will aggravate government finances and public health. debt burden. The current economic growth is under great pressure, and the government’s financial growth is also under great pressure. It is necessary to cut taxes for small and micro enterprises, and to pay for epidemic prevention and control. How much money can the government have to spend? Can only rely on debt. The government has borrowed heavily for construction over the years, and the debt burden is already heavy. If the debt scale continues to expand, debt risks and financial risks will intensify.
Second, it will expand financial risks. Stimulating consumption by "distributing money to all people" is the same as stimulating consumption by stimulating consumer credit, except that the main body of debt has changed from the public to the government. The prosperity of credit consumption is often the beginning of economic crisis and financial crisis , and the beginning of "money distribution" will also be the beginning of economic crisis and financial crisis.
Third, it will have a negative impact on the labor market. After the U.S. government distributed money on a large scale last year, many workers chose to withdraw from the labor market, resulting in a severe labor shortage, which to a certain extent triggered inflation. This year the money has run out, and because of the persistently high inflation, many people have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet.
Fourth, the stimulating effect of "money distribution" on consumption is one-time . Once the stimulated consumption growth becomes unstable, the balance between production and consumption will be broken, and the contradiction between production and consumption will expand. The greater the intensity of consumption, the greater the contradictions that will be enlarged, and the more serious the adverse impact on the social economy will be.
Fifth, the effect of "distributing money" is only one-time. If it is to continue to work, it must continue to distribute money, and the above-mentioned disadvantages will continue to expand.
Of course, some people may say that if the method of "distributing money" can indeed effectively boost consumption and have a positive impact on economic growth, after weighing the pros and cons, the benefits of "distributing money" can be maximized by adjusting policy measures. It is not impossible to control the adverse effects of "distributing money" within an acceptable range.
The biggest disadvantage of "distributing money to all people" is that "good steel cannot be used on the cutting edge", which will cause huge waste. There are better ways to improve income distribution and promote consumption. — For example, increasing social security.
Imagine the following scenario. In the desert, water resources are very scarce, and a few people use the water resources they control to make huge profits. When people are dying of thirst, if they need to exchange all their wealth for water resources, will they agree to exchange? Of course I would. Will all the wealth in the desert be concentrated in the hands of a few interest groups who control water resources? When all people's wealth is exchanged for water resources, will other consumption shrink? How can
avoid such a situation? If the government nationalizes all water resources and then distributes them equally, the efficiency of water resources development will be very low, and water resources will be relatively more scarce.
If the government can provide certain guarantees for people's demand for water, will water resources no longer become so expensive, and will the wealth that a few interest groups can obtain by using water resources also decrease?
Improving people's satisfaction with water resource needs can reduce the value of water, because the marginal utility is diminishing, and the marginal utility determines the value.
If the government does not provide certain guarantees for people's demand for water resources, but distributes money to everyone, and many people spend the money recklessly, will the money go to waste?
The supply of resources such as medical care, education, and housing is relatively always in short supply. The excessive growth of people's medical, education, housing, etc. expenses is often the main culprit for the polarization of the rich and the poor in society and weak consumption growth. We cannot nationalize all industries such as health care, education, housing, etc. This will result in a very inefficient supply of related resources. Then, only relying on improving the security satisfaction of the people’s needs in medical care, education, housing, etc.to curb the disparity between rich and poor.
If the government does not invest in social security, but distributes money to the people, and many people spend the money recklessly, will the money go to waste?
