人间清醒版为什么中国不直接给老百姓发钱刺激经济。
一句话结论，直接发钱给老百姓绕过官僚，官僚会加倍去抢百姓，反而更会激起百姓造反。
Thanks for reading Yi Publication! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Subscribe看了半天MMT理论，也就是日本能够实行了，官僚和人民都可以，相反，如果一边是贪官，另一边是刁民，这个就玩不下的，所以呢，对川普政府不是那么看好，毕竟，你要整治零元购等刁民是好的，你自己是不是开老鼠仓的，大家都看在眼里了。
按照MMT理论，半桶水学渣对中国的建议，估计会是引进高MPC人口，也就是全世界最垃圾的垃圾人口来提高需求，这种理论推演不考虑一些因素，是一个直接结论，所以，学渣或者别有用心的坏人，肯定会这么提出的。要是哪个西方回来的经济学家这么说的话，是应该立刻抓去枪毙一万遍的。理论是没错的，你忘了加参数的话，就像做个菜没加水，最后肯定会糊锅和不能收拾的，但是菜谱会让你买肉买土豆，但不会标明买水。
中国的特点，人民和官僚阶层都是低MPC群体，发钱给人民，会存起来很多，只用维生的最低限消费，官僚阶层虽然奢侈腐败，但是投资意识也很强，高消费的金额，同拿到手的相比，并不高，投资（包括买房）也是占比大头的。简单的说，两者都是低MPC也就是低MPC人群（低边际消费倾向人群，通常被定义为：收入中很大比例用于储蓄、投资金融资产、偿还债务或购买奢侈品/资产，而不是用于即期消费的群体。）
所以有的经济学家会说，经济刺激，国家直升机发钱的话，无论给人民还是给官僚，都因为MPC太低，效果不会好，那怎么办？就引进高MPC人口，也就是非法移民、假庇护者和第三世界犯罪型移民，他们之所以MPC最高，不是因为他们“道德高尚”或“勤劳”，而是因为他们处于最底层的生存约束：没身份、没资产、没信用、没安全感，任何到手的1块钱都只能也必须立刻花掉。因此从纯粹的凯恩斯乘数和需求刺激角度，他们确实是“最有效”的转移支付对象，这也是很多左翼MMT学者在内部从不否认、但公开场合不敢大声说出来的一个“政治不正确”的实证结论。
这就是从所谓MMT理论引出，中国要引进大量黑人和穆斯林甚至印度人来促进需求和消费的所谓理论依据。
只能说，放他妈的狗屁，中国的底层，哪里是不想花钱消费？明明是不敢花钱好不。
那么，通过官僚阶层向人民发钱，会被官僚机构大面积贪污截流掉，现在的技术手段已经可以直接向人民按人头发钱，为什么不这么做呢？人民有钱了，有信息了，花钱就刺激了消费呀。一个小县城，20万人口，修一条大马路20亿，等于一人一万，但有8成可能被官僚分掉，最后没多少刺激消费，给居民一人分一万，马上消费就该起来了呀？为什么不呢？
还要从官僚阶层的腐败和贪婪，不受限制的权力滥用上说起，人民有了钱，消费，小商家赚钱，并提供工作岗位，经济循环起来？错了，人民会有点钱，但是官僚狗腿子会去抢，更会对小商家敲骨吸髓的抢，反正权力没有制约和不受控制。
城管连大冷天卖烤红薯的老太太都能围着殴打罚款抢那几毛小钱，你认为官僚集团不会来抢吗？本来没有也无所谓被抢，中央发给你钱了，底层百姓有钱了，官僚集团就有了抢劫的动力，就会搞出各种名目，想办法把这些钱抢到手，或者直接抢能提供服务和就业，能过赚钱的小老板。
财富这样的转移过程，对底层社会的侵扰和对社会矛盾的激化，将是颠覆性的。原来没钱挨饿也习惯了，现在给你块肉，刚吃上一口尝到了好滋味，再给你抢走，感受是不一样的。
既然政府没有办法限制底层官僚对人民的权力滥用或者说侵害，那么跳过官僚阶层直接向底层发钱，结果反而会促进权力的滥用和社会矛盾激化，那么，最简单的办法，就是不发钱咯。
换一句话说，就是官僚系统是癌细胞，虚弱的身体，癌细胞因为营养不足，并没有那么活跃，而一旦大量向机体注入营养，癌细胞反而活跃和到处转移了，死的更快。
为什么大家憧憬文革？文革时期，人民群众的力量被有限度的释放出来，对付官僚阶层罢了，换一句话说，一家一把56半，城管还敢抢吗？人人有枪他才不乱对吧，众生平等器，首先制约的是拥有不平等暴力手段的官僚阶层。
说实话，文革式的运动搞一下，官僚阶层被斗争一下，直接向人民发钱的障碍也就没有了。
A Sobering Reality Check: Why China Does Not Directly Issue Cash Payments to Citizens to Stimulate the EconomyOne-Sentence Conclusion: Bypassing the bureaucracy to issue direct cash payments to the populace would only motivate officials to redouble their efforts to extort the citizens, which would, in turn, be more likely to incite unrest and revolt.
The AnalysisAfter reviewing Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), it appears Japan is one of the few countries where it could be successfully implemented because both the bureaucracy and the populace are relatively compliant. Conversely, if you have a combination of corrupt officials and a ‘rebellious’ populace, MMT is unworkable. This is why I remain skeptical of the Trump administration; while cracking down on ‘disruptive’ elements like ‘smash-and-grab’ looting is commendable, the public is watching to see if the government itself is engaged in insider trading.
Following MMT logic, a half-baked academic’s suggestion for China would likely be to import a high-MPC population—i.e., the world’s ‘most undesirable’ migrants—to boost demand. This theoretical deduction is a direct conclusion that neglects crucial variables and would thus be proposed by either a poor student or a malicious actor. Any Western-educated economist making such a suggestion for China should be dealt with severely. The theory itself may be sound, but forgetting to include necessary parameters is like cooking a dish without water—it will inevitably burn and be ruined. The recipe tells you to buy meat and potatoes but neglects to explicitly mention water.
The characteristic of China is that both the populace and the official class are low-MPC (Marginal Propensity to Consume) groups. Giving cash to the people would result in a high percentage being saved, with only the bare minimum spent on subsistence. Although the official class is extravagant and corrupt, they also have a strong investment mindset; the amount spent on high consumption is not proportionally large compared to the total funds they handle. Investment (including property purchase) accounts for the lion’s share. Simply put, both are low-MPC populations, defined as groups who allocate a large proportion of their income to savings, financial investment, debt repayment, or purchasing luxuries/assets, rather than immediate consumption.
Therefore, some economists might argue that direct government stimulus, or ‘helicopter money,’ would be ineffective whether given to the people or the officials, due to their low MPC. The proposed solution? Introduce a high-MPC population: illegal immigrants, false asylum seekers, and third-world ‘criminal’ migrants. The reason their MPC is highest is not due to ‘moral superiority’ or ‘diligence,’ but because they are under the most stringent existential constraints: no legal status, no assets, no credit, and no security. Every dollar they receive must, and can only, be spent immediately. Hence, from the pure perspective of the Keynesian multiplier and demand stimulation, they are indeed the ‘most effective’ recipients of transfer payments. This is an empirically established—though ‘politically incorrect’—conclusion that many left-leaning MMT scholars admit privately but dare not state publicly.
This is the alleged theoretical basis derived from MMT for China to introduce large numbers of Black people, Muslims, and even Indians to boost demand and consumption. I can only say this is utter bullshit. Is it that China’s poor don’t want to spend? It’s that they simply dare not spend.
While direct disbursement via the bureaucracy would be largely embezzled and diverted, modern technology allows for direct person-to-person cash payments. Why not do this? With money and information, wouldn’t citizens’ spending stimulate consumption? For instance, a small county of 200,000 people builds a highway for 2 billion RMB—equivalent to 10,000 RMB per person—but 80% is likely siphoned off by officials, resulting in little consumption stimulus. If 10,000 RMB were distributed directly to each resident, wouldn’t consumption immediately take off? Why is this not done? The answer must again be rooted in the corruption, greed, and unrestrained abuse of power by the official class. People get money, they spend, small businesses profit and create jobs, and the economy cycles? Incorrect. The people would have some money, but bureaucratic lackeys would start seizing it, and would ruthlessly extort small business owners—since power is unconstrained and unchecked. Given that city management officers can assault and fine an old woman selling roasted sweet potatoes in the cold for a few cents, do you believe the bureaucratic class would refrain from seizing this new wealth? When the poor have nothing, there is nothing to seize. But once the central government issues cash, providing the populace with funds, the bureaucratic apparatus gains a powerful motive for predation. They will invent various pretexts to seize the money, or directly target the small business owners who provide services and employment.
Such a wealth transfer process, coupled with the infringement on the lower strata of society, would be fundamentally destabilizing and would acutely intensify social conflict. People accustomed to poverty and hunger are resigned; but if they are given a piece of meat, taste its goodness, and then have it snatched away, the experience is entirely different. Since the government cannot restrain or prevent the abuse of power and infringement by lower-level officials against the people, then bypassing the bureaucracy to issue direct cash payments would, paradoxically, promote the abuse of power and escalate social tensions. Therefore, the simplest solution is simply not to issue the cash.
To use an analogy: the bureaucracy is a cancer. In a weak, malnourished body, the cancer is relatively dormant due to a lack of nutrients. But once a large amount of nutrition is injected into the system, the cancer becomes hyperactive and metastasizes everywhere, leading to a quicker death for the host.
Why do some people long for the Cultural Revolution? During that period, the power of the masses was selectively unleashed to confront the official class. To rephrase: if every family had a semi-automatic rifle, would the city management officers still dare to seize property? ‘A well-armed populace is a polite populace.’ The ‘great equalizer’ primarily constrains the official class that possesses an unequal monopoly on violence. Frankly, if a Cultural Revolution-style movement were to occur, and the official class were sufficiently struggled against, the obstruction to issuing direct cash payments to the people would cease to exist.
Thanks for reading Yi Publication! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Subscribe