If we have different or even opposite views on the same issue, this will lead to different behaviors and decisions, which will eventually lead to two different outcomes, or even diametrically opposed outcomes.
This point of view, from the perspective of the economic field, is indeed very accurate.
For a long time, there has been a voice that consumerism is wasteful, undesirable, and even a decadent way of life, so we can't let consumption occupy too much macroeconomic space, especially not let consumption corrode the hearts and minds of young people.
There seem to be very few people who hold this view today, but in fact, there are many people behind this view, otherwise, we probably can't understand why we almost never actually "threw money" in the past.
In the most difficult moment of the past three years, many economies in Europe, the United States and even the world have adopted cash subsidies to support enterprises and individuals, especially small and medium-sized enterprises and low-income groups, to tide over the difficulties.
We can see both of these points very well today.
In the past, the United States was tormented by inflation, but so far, the American economy has been surprisingly good, which is beyond the scope of many economists and even institutions, and the logic and problems behind this are no longer within the scope of this article.
The core point I want to make is actually one:Consumerism is not a waste, but the only medicine that stimulates economic growth.
The reason for this is that our past economic model was, frankly speaking, not focused on consumption, or at least not on consumption dominated by the tertiary sector.
This leads to different problems.
Our past economic model is driven by infrastructure, from roads, bridges, trains to factories, airports and houses, these are essentially a kind of infrastructure, to stimulate consumption with infrastructure, there is not much problem, after all, to get rich first build roads, the quality of infrastructure, can indeed greatly improve the convenience of transactions, reduce the cost of commercial circulation.
But the road of infrastructure construction obviously cannot go on forever.
Since 1990, our country's GDP has grown at an average annual rate of about 9 percent, and this year, this figure has reached about 5 percent, which means that our economic growth is starting to slow down.
It is not difficult to deduce the reasons for today's economic slowdown from the past economic model, the saturation of infrastructure has lowered the contribution rate to GDP, and in addition, the investment performance is sluggish from the data, far less than the past peak.
So, how to choose the economic model of the future? This may seem like a question that varies from person to person, but in fact, from the current international experience, it seems that there is only one way, and that is to stimulate the economy through popular consumption, which is what we commonly call consumerism today.
The essence of consumerism is actually to promote consumers to buy new TVs, subscribe to ** members, travel and dine, consume and shop, and so on.
Why is consumerism not wasteful, but the only medicine to stimulate economic growth?
The answer is actually very simple, because only consumption is the economic growth model that maximizes benefits; In the past, whether it was infrastructure construction or real estate investment, it was really only a small group of people who really attracted the wealth, some of them were contractors, and some were organizations with good relations with the local government, undertaking projects or subcontracting.
What kind of growth model is this?
People with connections, connections, and resources are able to grasp a large amount of money and earn huge profits, and in turn, a large number of ordinary people rely on their own labor and rely on low wages, and it is difficult to live a relatively good life.
This is the drawback of the economic model of the past.
Consumerism, on the other hand, is to increase the salary income of the vast majority of ordinary people, and then through their high-frequency consumption, to stimulate enterprise investment, expand production, and drive employment.
This is a very positive cycle economic model, and it is also an economic growth model that can maintain long-term economic growth and have almost no ***.
It is also the common choice of all advanced economies in the world today, without one exception.
In the past, when we mentioned Europe and the United States, we usually said that they had an almost luxurious life, such as we often see in American dramas or movies, holding parties, or munching on several pounds of beef, or almost every bedroom has to be equipped with a TV even if it is not watched, etc.
But is this a waste?
In my opinion, with the growth of the economy and the improvement of per capita living standards, our definition of "waste" is actually changing.
To take the simplest example, when I was a child, my mother would tell me to take a bath in the bathtub, so that the water could be used to flush the toilet, but to this day, how many families are still adopting this lifestyle?
So can families that do not adopt this lifestyle today be called waste?
For example, in the past, if you can't finish the leftovers, even if you don't have a refrigerator, you will insist on eating the leftovers instead of choosing to throw them out, but today some leftover vegetables must be poured out overnight, otherwise long-term consumption will be bad for the human body, so is this a waste?
In the past, grandparents in those days, not to mention eating meat, even rice was difficult to see, and finally encountered a meal of meat, even if it was rancid, they were willing to eat it, so this standard is considered a waste today?
Therefore, consumerism is not the same as waste, and the level of per capita income in an economy determines the definition of "waste" by people in that economy.
In my opinion, as long as a person is not deliberately wasteful and consciously wasteful, then his consumption is not wasteful.
Otherwise, a person can survive without drinking, and can survive without going to an Internet café without entertainment, so why do we still have to go to an Internet café to have fun? Is this a waste?
For an African child, throwing away food overnight is a huge waste; But for us, for Europe and the United States, this is actually a very common thing.
Therefore, our definition of waste, in fact, is the improvement of the quality of life, consumerism is not the same as waste, a person can not eat again when he is full, and if he eats again, he will eat a bad stomach, you can save the food for the next time, or don't order so much next time, of course, this is not called waste.
But if a person deliberately orders a lot of food and can't finish it, this is called waste.
Today's economic model of developed economies is actually built on a large number of middle-class groups, because the people's income is generally higher, so they have a higher consumption power, which also supports a large number of employed people in disguise, and the two complement each other, forming a perfect closed loop of economic growth.
Judging from the data, China still has huge growth potential.
For example, our per capita GDP is just over $10,000, and nearly 40% of our population still lives in rural areas, which shows that there is still huge room for improvement in our consumption potential and income growth levels.
But as I said, if we have a different view of the consensus on an issue, this can lead to different or even opposite decisions and behaviors.
For example, take the matter of stimulating consumption.
Consumption is very important, but consumption is not so important today, consumption is not so important when foreign capital is not good, exports are not so important, consumption has always been important, consumption is not a tool, but in today's modern business society, one of the necessary methods for a person to maintain the secret of happiness.
But there is still little to be done to stimulate consumption, or to increase people's consumption, because one person's consumption is another's income, and if we don't move in the direction of consumerism, our income may never be able to raise to the level of advanced economies.
In the past, we said that some people should get rich first, but the people who got rich first were like boiling the water on the top of a pot with a fire, and these people turned into water vapor and ran outside with the water, while more water below was still cold, and even less and less water was boiling.
What is the root cause behind this?
It is the distribution mechanism that has gone wrong, and it is caused by the uneven distribution of income, which has led to "drought and drought and waterlogging".
After all, no matter how rich a person is, he will drink a bottle of red wine and a liter of milk a day at most, and no matter how many consumer goods he has, it is not that he cannot afford to consume, but that he cannot consume them.
Therefore, consumerism must be based on the relatively high income of the majority of people, and only in this way can the high-frequency consumption of the whole people drive the upward growth of an economy.
But there is a contradiction, or paradox, behind this.
According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, after a person achieves food and clothing, he will begin to pursue self-worth, respect and even social responsibility, which may be the fundamental reason why we are more and more active in consumption today.
We look at the transformation of Japan and South Korea in history, and behind the transformation of a large number of middle-class groups, but today, China's population of 1.4 billion, the middle-class group is less than 100 million, and less than one in ten people is middle-class, which shows that our general income is still low.
Of course, a more specific answer can also be found in traditional Legalist thought.
That's probably part of the reason why we're hesitant today.
There must be resistance to this, a person sleeps in the bed in the cold winter, wants to get up and go to the toilet, will struggle in his mind, and will struggle whether to get up and go to the toilet, not to mention in a macro economy, any choice, of course, there will be resistance.
But as long as it can be crossed, then this is the next outlet for rapid growth.