Wen Tiejun, an expert on agriculture and agriculture who is nearly old, has been active in the forefront of self-media, sharing his profound insights on agriculture, rural areas and farmers' issues in the form of short videos. Each of his ideas can cause quite a stir online. Today we're going to dig deeper into the actual utility behind his claims.
Professor Wen emphasized the impact of capital going to the countryside. He believed that the influx of capital had deprived the peasants of their bargaining power and autonomy, and had plunged them into a new state of poverty.
Since the reform and opening up, the injection of international capital has indeed promoted the rapid development of China's economy, and rural areas have ushered in some so-called "modernization" projects. Professor Wen's concern is whether this modernization is really in the interests of farmers.
It is worth recalling the double-edged sword effect of capital. Capital has brought investment and technology, agricultural productivity has increased, and farmers in some areas have indeed received more income as a result. What is the price behind this?
More peasants have become vassals of capital and have lost their voice in their own land. In this case, Professor Wen's concerns are not unfounded.
The second point made by Professor Wen was that farmers should stay in the country and develop local industries. He believes that this can better solve the emotional needs of migrant workers, and home is a warm harbor.
This ideal is beautiful, but the implementation is a different story. If we simply restrict the flow of agricultural factors, we may inadvertently reduce the real purchasing power of farmers, reducing their incomes and creating an economic vicious circle.
The government's recent strategy is to break the local administrative monopoly and promote the free flow of various elements to form a unified national market. This strategy stands in stark contrast to Professor Wen's assertions. Professor Wen's ideas are well-intentioned, but they may be contrary to the direction of real policy.
Professor Wen suggested that companies should pay taxes and also take on more social responsibilities such as charity, employee health care and pension. Sounds reasonable, right?
Especially for a large company like Huawei, it seems reasonable to take on more social responsibility. The question is does this place an additional financial burden on businesses? In a highly competitive market environment, will such requirements affect the competitiveness of enterprises?
Professor Wen's propositions are from the perspective of the people at the bottom and fight for more rights and interests for them. This position is morally impeachable and can be said to be very noble. However, from a practical point of view, whether these ideas can be implemented and how effective they are is still a matter of question.
When we say that we want to restrict the free flow of capital and protect the interests of farmers, we must also take into account that the mobility of capital is one of the basic elements of a market economy.
Excessive restrictions can hinder the overall development of the economy and affect the competitiveness of the country.
Professor Wen's ideas have been supported and appreciated by some people, but they have also been opposed by others. They believe that Professor Wen's ideas, while good, are too idealistic to be effectively implemented in reality.
We can't help but ask, what will happen to Professor Wen's assertions? Can they really help the people at the bottom, or do they stay at the level of theory?
We cannot deny Professor Wen's good intentions and concern for the people at the bottom, but we must also face practical difficulties and challenges.
#头条创作挑战赛#