Peking University professor Yao Yang in 2020 an interview content, this year again on the Internet popular, in a short period of time has attracted widespread attention, the number of comments as high as nearly 30,000, what did he say, why will it cause heated discussion?
According to Yao Yang, now for Our country more important thing, is to stimulate consumption, but look at the relevant situation in our country, in fact, 40% of them belong to low income, and even 10% of people are still negative savings, in this case, instead of issuing consumption allowances, it is better to send money directly.
Even if 1,000 yuan is distributed to each person, it is only about 140 million yuan at a time, and you can choose not to face everyone, throw away the income group such as high school, and only distribute 2,000 yuan to each low-income person, so that the public will naturally consume when they have money in their hands.
This statement of suggesting direct payment of money does speak to the hearts of many people, and has also won the support of many people, after all, many people now not only have low incomes, but also bear a lot of mortgages and car loans, if there is an additional subsidy amount, it will also appropriately reduce some of the pressure of life.
To know that in 2021, the total amount of loans to the people in our country has exceeded 63.19 trillion, of which the amount involved in housing loans is as high as 35.67 trillion, and about 70% of the families in China are saddled with housing debts, not only that, but even since this year, there are 38.5% of people in China, because they are unable to bear housing debts, so they can only choose to cut off supply, and watch the houses being taken away by the bank.
There are also many people who even have the ability to buy a house, but also all their previous savings have been taken out, in this context, many people to maintain daily life has been very difficult, where more spare money for other projects to spend?
In September this year, China's total consumer goods reached 3,683.3 billion, compared with the same period in 2020, it only rose by 4.4%, and the average growth rate in the past two years was only 3.8%, which is actually not impressive.
Although there is a National Day holiday in October, many people will choose to travel with their whole family or with their friends, and it is normal for each attraction to be overcrowded, but the number of people traveling in the country this year is only 515 million, and its corresponding tourism income is only about 60% of 2019.
Usually, the proportion of consumption in China's GDP is not low, once there is a problem with consumption, it will also affect the rapid development of China's economy to a certain extent, so it seems that Professor Yao Yang's words are not unreasonable, directly send money, when the public has money in their hands, there will be more ability to consume, thereby stimulating economic development.
What's more, the United States, Japan and other countries have taken measures to directly send money, so have these countries really achieved the expected goals by adopting this direct and appropriate approach?
Let's first look at the situation in Japan, during the public health event, in order to reduce the pressure on the public's life, Japan launched an economic stimulus plan, one of which is to directly distribute 100,000 yen to each citizen, which is equivalent to about 5638 yuan.
But this measure not only did not promote the development of the Japanese economy, but even made Japan heavily indebted, to know that Japan in recent years because of the serious aging problem, its economic development is slow, in order to stimulate public consumption, but also increased fiscal expenditure, from the original 2.25 billion, directly increased to 6.76 billion, basically up 3 times.
But even so, Japan's economy still hit an all-time low, its economy fell by 25%, exports plummeted by 60%, it is clear that Japan's direct money measures have not achieved obvious results, so what is the situation in the United States?
In fact, the United States is similar to Japan, in order to stimulate consumption, decided to issue more than 7600 yuan of subsidies to the public during the public health incident in 2020, not only that, the unemployed can also receive about 3825 yuan per week on this basis.
Of course, the specific amount of payment in each region in the United States is also different, but overall its amount is not low, and it is precisely because of this initiative proposed by the United States that many unemployed people receive benefits every week, which is higher than the wages of many people.
In this context, many people have resigned in order to receive unemployment benefits, and many jobs have fallen into a "labor shortage", which has exacerbated the recession of the US economy.
Therefore, from the perspective of the situation in Japan and the United States, directly sending money to the people has not achieved the expected effect, but it has also made a mess in the country, so it is better to be cautious about this measure of directly sending money, what is everyone's opinion on this?