Can People Rely on the Government to Achieve Economic Prosperity?

Avatar photo
Kishou · Jan 22, 2025
When it comes to economic regulation and reducing the wealth gap, many people tend to place the responsibility on the government. As the central entity of macroeconomic control, the government certainly plays a crucial role in promoting economic balance through a series of policies and measures. However, is this reliance enough? Can it truly lead […]

When it comes to economic regulation and reducing the wealth gap, many people tend to place the responsibility on the government. As the central entity of macroeconomic control, the government certainly plays a crucial role in promoting economic balance through a series of policies and measures. However, is this reliance enough? Can it truly lead to long-term economic prosperity? This is a question worth delving into.


The Current State and Challenges of Government Regulation

Governments around the world have long sought to regulate the economy through tax, fiscal policies, and legal regulations. For instance, Japan’s corporate tax is a direct tax measure that targets the profitability of businesses, aiming to extract resources from prosperous enterprises and redistribute them to areas of society in need of support. Likewise, the United States employs a progressive income tax system, requiring higher-income groups to shoulder a greater tax burden in order to provide more public services for the lower socioeconomic strata.

While these policies may seem well-designed in theory, they face numerous challenges in actual implementation:

  1. Efficiency of tax redistribution
    The tax revenue collected ultimately needs to be invested back into society, but how the government allocates these resources is often questioned. For example, in Japan, some local government funds have been used for large-scale infrastructure projects, but the direct impact on improving the lives of ordinary citizens is limited, and these projects have even become symbols of “useless investments.” Similarly, the U.S. government has also faced criticism for its massive military spending and certain inefficient social security programs.
  2. Flexibility and Fairness of Policies
    Policy-making often struggles to fully account for the diversity of individuals and industries. For example, Japan’s consumption tax, while theoretically applied equally to all consumer behaviors, disproportionately burdens low-income groups and small businesses in practice. For low-income individuals, the consumption tax represents a larger percentage of their income, increasing their financial strain. Small businesses face greater difficulties when passing on the tax, especially when competing with large chain stores, where maintaining a price advantage becomes challenging. While the policy aims to be fair, the lack of targeted support may unintentionally widen the disparity in burdens across different groups.

Inefficiency and Waste: The Limits of Government Capabilities

The problem is not just about the efficiency of tax redistribution, but also the growing concern over the government’s poor performance in economic regulation.

  • Japan’s Inefficient Infrastructure: The Japanese government has spent huge sums to build numerous local airports and high-speed rail stations, but many of these projects have been criticized as “symbolic engineering” due to low utilization rates. These projects have consumed massive fiscal resources without effectively promoting regional economic development.
  • The Welfare Crisis in Europe: In the 1970s, the expansive welfare state models adopted by many European countries fell into crisis. Government fiscal deficits ballooned, as public service systems struggled to be maintained due to excessive burdens. For instance, the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) has grappled with issues in resource allocation, resulting in shortages of medical resources. The government has long been criticized for mismanaging this critical public health system.

Besides, the large-scale quantitative easing policies implemented by the United States after the 2008 financial crisis, while stabilizing the economy in the short term, have also been criticized for driving up asset prices and exacerbating wealth inequality.


The Limitations of Government Capabilities: Lessons from Japan and the West

Throughout history, the shortcomings of government economic intervention have been repeatedly exposed. The Japanese experience provides a cautionary tale – the signing of the Plaza Accord led to a rapid appreciation of the yen, triggering the formation and bursting of an economic bubble. The subsequent “Lost Decades” demonstrated the limitations of overly relying on government control.

Similar challenges have played out in Europe and the US as well. Following the 2008 financial crisis, some Eurozone countries were forced to implement harsh fiscal austerity measures to address the sovereign debt crisis. While this government intervention brought short-term stability, it also contributed to prolonged economic stagnation, as seen in the persistently high unemployment rates in countries like Greece and Spain.


Seeking New Approaches for Economic Prosperity

Given the limitations inherent in government-led economic management, we need to revisit a fundamental question: is economic prosperity necessarily dependent on the government alone? Our view is that the answer is no. While government policymaking remains important, it is far from the sole or even the primary driver of lasting economic vitality.

The path to future prosperity requires the collaborative participation of the government, enterprises, individuals, and social organizations. This diversified model entails several key elements:

  1. Proactive Participation of Individuals, Groups, and Enterprises
    Individuals and enterprises should not merely be passive recipients of government policies, but active participants in economic regulation. For example, as enterprises fulfill their corporate social responsibility (CSR), they can proactively contribute to regional economic development. Individuals can also influence the direction of the economy through selective consumption or investment.
  2. Gradual Decentralization of Government Functions
    The gradual decentralization of government functions to individuals, groups, and enterprises does not weaken the government’s authority, but can actually improve the overall efficiency of social operations. For example, the subdivision of administrative units can reduce resource waste and avoid the inefficiency caused by excessive centralized government management. The decentralization of administration not only makes policy implementation more flexible, but also allows for more precise responses to the needs of different regions or fields.

Possibilities of Society-Led Economic Regulation

If social organizations and enterprises gradually participate in economic regulation, we can foresee the following possibilities:

  • Increased Policy Flexibility: Social organizations can closely meet the needs of specific groups and quickly respond to changing economic situations.
  • Reduced Resource Waste: Through decentralized management, it can avoid resource misallocation caused by uniform and standardized policies.
  • Enhanced Social Resilience: A diversified economic system with multiple contributors is more resilient in times of crisis. During the pandemic, for instance, many businesses and individuals took part in material distribution and volunteer efforts, helping to fill the gaps left by government actions.

How can such a transformation be achieved?

Of course, this shift requires long-term exploration and practice. For individuals without substantial capital, how can they avoid being suppressed by the dominance of large corporations? The answer to this may lie in new financial models.

Social Citizen Finance is one of the future economic models proposed by Yicheng Commonweal. In this model, everyone can participate in economic regulation through a decentralized approach, truly benefiting from the prosperity brought by the economy.

If you are interested in this topic, you can read our special article on “Social Citizen Finance”. We will continue to explore this subject, showcasing the potential for economic prosperity in the new era.

 

Share this article:
LEARN MORE

Continue Reading

活着的两种面貌:民主与苟活

Yicheng · Mar 28, 2025

生而为人,“活着”不止是生理上的延续生命,还指向一种精神与灵魂的成长。然而,在文明的不同阶段,“活着”的意义却呈现出天壤之别。 有的人活在恐惧中、奴役中、欺骗中,只为苟全性命于乱世,不问是非;有的人则活在觉醒中、尊严中、参与中,为了自由与权利而不惜抗争。 在现实的社会结构中,“苟且的活着”与“民主的活着”不是抽象的哲学对照,而是真实存在于国家制度、历史进程与人性深处的两种状态。 一、苟且的活着:奴性的制度温床 “苟且的活着”并非个人懦弱的简单体现,它是历史上长期专制体制、等级制度与意识形态钳制下的普遍产物。在这种状态下,人的生存被压缩为一具肉体的延续,剥离了自由、尊严与主体性。 在许多文明史中,封建帝制往往构建起了“苟且”这一制度温床。例如,中国自秦汉以来的中央集权制、罗马帝国晚期的军政统治,乃至20世纪极权国家对思想与言论的全面封锁,都制造了大量“沉默的多数”。 这些人没有权利、没有声音,无法表达自我,只能选择服从——这并非出于信仰,而是出于恐惧。 苟且的活着也伴随着人的精神堕落。当人们长期生活在专制文化中,渐渐内化为“明哲保身”“识时务者为俊杰”“多一事不如少一事”的处世哲学。这种精神麻醉是比肉体压迫更为深刻的剥夺,它侵蚀了人作为社会主体的判断力和行动力,最终人不再思考“为什么活着”,只思考“怎么活下去”。 二、民主的活着:公民尊严与权利的觉醒 与之对照,“民主的活着”则是公民意识觉醒的产物,是一种建立在权利保障、制度参与与言论自由之上的生存状态。在这里,“活着”不仅是肉体的存续,更是一种具有选择权、表达权、参与权的生活。 1. 制度的保障:自由不是抽象理想 西方民主制度的发展,尤其以18世纪启蒙运动与美国、法国革命为分水岭,标志着“民主的活着”从思想走向制度。从卢梭的《社会契约论》到林肯的“民有、民治、民享”,民主制度将个体从臣民变为公民,使他们获得参与国家治理的权利。即使在制度不完美的现实中,民主国家的公民依然拥有挑战体制的合法路径与公开表达不满的权利。 2. 精神的自觉:公民社会的生成 民主不仅仅是制度形式,更是一种深层的文化与精神氛围。在一个成熟的民主社会中,个体具有对真理的追求、对正义的敏感、对他人权利的尊重。他们敢于批判政府,也乐于承担公共责任;他们拥有多元的价值观,也愿意通过对话达成共识。 三、苟且与民主:历史与现实的交错 历史并非非黑即白,苟且与民主往往共存于同一社会不同层面。在现代国家中,即便表面上实行民主制度,也可能存在隐性的思想审查、经济垄断与阶级压迫,使部分人仍在“苟且”中生活。 而某些制度封闭的国家,也可能出现底层民众追求民主的抗争,如阿拉伯之春、香港“雨伞运动”等等。 就算在民主制度已经相对成熟的国家,经济下行时,也常常面临极权思想、法西斯思想卷土重来的风险,特别是在社会不安定、民众失业率上升、贫富差距加剧时。这些思想通过激化社会分裂、煽动仇恨与恐惧,往往能够在民众中找到某种程度的支持,进而威胁到民主制度的根基。 毋庸置疑,现行的民主制度仍然存在不少漏洞。比如,技术垄断与资本异化也正在塑造一种“伪民主”的状态——人们看似拥有选择权,实则被算法控制、消费绑架、媒体操控。 民主的“形式”愈发普遍,而民主的“实质”却被不断稀释,这种结构性的异化正使部分民主社会重新滑入“苟且”的陷阱。 四、人性剖析:为何苟且比民主更容易? 苟且之所以普遍,不仅因为制度的压迫,还因为人性中的惰性。面对复杂的社会、风险和责任,很多人宁愿选择服从、沉默或逃避。这是一种对“自由”的恐惧。海德格尔称之为“虚无中的沉沦”,意思是当人们面对生活的荒谬时,他们选择放弃自我,融入庸常的群体。 而民主的活着,则需要主体性、思考能力、判断力、道德勇气、不断学习与政治参与,这对人类来说是一条更自由的路,但也充满了艰难。托克维尔早在《论美国的民主》中就指出,自由制度对公民品格的要求远高于专制制度,因为它要求每个人都成为自己的“国王”,去掌控自己的生活,积极构建更好的社会环境。 结语:文明的十字路口 当我们谈论“活着”的方式,其实是在选择一种文明的方向。是继续苟且于控制、奴役与沉默之中?还是昂首走向权利、尊严与公共责任的生活方式?这不仅是每一个国家制度的问题,更是我们这个时代全人类的抉择。 “苟且”是历史的沉积物,也是人性的退缩,“苟且的活着”终将导致文明的停滞甚至倒退。而“民主”则是文明的跃升,也是人类对自我本质的回应。 “民主的活着”虽艰难,却是文明得以延续与升华的唯一道路。 愿我们每一个人,都不再满足于被活着,而是开始有尊严、有判断地活着。这是文明的方向,也是人性的召唤。

苛政才是使天下大乱、生灵涂炭的根源

Yicheng · Mar 27, 2025

国家的建立本是为了维护社会秩序,保障人民的基本生存权。然而,历史却反复证明,政府的存在本身并不必然带来安定,反而在许多情况下,政府的制度不公、统治者施行苛政,最终导致社会动荡,生灵涂炭。 中国古人云:“苛政猛于虎。” 一个制度残酷、政府腐败、权力滥用的政府,比无政府状态可怕多了。 无政府状态未必会导致全面崩溃,而苛政却往往让社会陷入真正的深渊,使百姓生活在无休止的压迫与苦难之中。 观察历史我们可以得出三个结论: 1. 有政府也可能导致天下大乱、生灵涂炭——历史上不乏政府本身成为社会动荡根源的例子。 2. 无政府未必导致全面崩溃——某些历史时期,缺乏中央政府的社会仍然能够维持相对的稳定。 3. 苛政才是真正天下大乱、生灵涂炭的根源——当制度走向极端,政府的暴政比无政府状态更具毁灭性。 一、政府的存在并不必然带来稳定 政府的建立,理论上是为了管理社会、维护秩序,但历史却屡次证明,当政府施行苛政、腐败横行或滥用权力时,政府本身反而成为社会动荡的根源。许多社会并非因无政府状态而崩溃,而是因政府的暴政和腐败而陷入深重灾难。 以下几个历史实例,清晰地展示了“有政府但依然天下大乱”的现实。 秦朝的暴政与灭亡 秦始皇统一六国后,建立了中央集权制度,这本应是一种维护秩序的举措。然而,他的统治极端专制,施行严刑峻法,徭役繁重,百姓负担极其沉重。“焚书坑儒”的文化专制,连同沉重的赋税和苦役,使民怨沸腾。 秦二世继位后,继续推行高压统治,不仅无力缓解社会矛盾,反而加剧了人民的痛苦。最终,陈胜吴广领导的农民起义爆发,全国各地响应,秦朝统治迅速崩溃,陷入战乱。 这场动乱不仅终结了秦朝的统治,也使无数百姓在战乱中死去。事实证明,即便政府强大,若施行苛政,也无法避免天下大乱。 纳粹德国与日本军国主义的灾难 二战期间,纳粹德国和日本军国主义政府本应保护人民,维持社会稳定,但它们却选择了极端政策,发动侵略战争,导致世界大战,造成数千万无辜平民的死亡。 这些政府的存在不仅未能带来稳定,反而成为全球范围的灾难制造者。纳粹德国在战争末期,政府垮台,国家分裂,人民承受了战火的毁灭;日本在战败后,国内经济崩溃,社会陷入严重混乱。 政府的暴政不仅会导致社会动荡,还会造成大规模死亡和经济衰退。例如: 这些案例清楚地表明,政府的存在并不意味着稳定,如果政府的制度是残酷和不公的,它反而会成为生灵涂炭的最大推手。 二、无政府状态也能保持相对稳定 许多人认为无政府状态意味着混乱和暴力,但事实并非如此。无政府状态是否导致社会崩溃,取决于社会的治理结构和文化背景。 如果一个社会依赖自治、传统习惯法和社区合作,它可能仍然保持相对稳定。 历史上有很多相关的案例: 1. 中世纪欧洲的封建自治体系 西罗马帝国灭亡后,欧洲进入了缺乏中央集权政府的时代。然而,社会并未完全崩溃,而是通过封建领主、教会、行会等组织维持秩序。尽管战争频繁,但并未出现全面的生灵涂炭。 2. 索马里兰的无政府自治 1991年,索马里政府垮台,全国陷入无政府状态。然而,索马里兰地区依靠部落传统和地方自治,成功维持了相对稳定,避免了全国性的混乱。 3. 瑞士的高度自治 瑞士是世界上最稳定的国家之一,地方自治程度极高,联邦政府权力有限。这种“接近无政府”的模式,使瑞士成为全球最安全、最富裕的国家之一。 从这些历史案例可以看出,社会是否陷入混乱,并不取决于政府的存在与否,而是社会治理体系是否合理。如果人们能够通过自治和合作维持秩序,即使在无政府状态下,社会仍然可以维持稳定。 三、苛政不如没有政府 历史上,许多国家之所以陷入持续动荡和生灵涂炭的困境,并不是因为无政府状态,而是因为政府本身施行了极端残酷和压迫性的制度。苛政不仅不能维持秩序,反而会引发社会矛盾,使国家陷入动荡,最终导致生灵涂炭。 一个政府的权力如果没有制衡,就容易走向暴政。当政府的统治者为了维持自身的权力地位,不断加重对人民的压迫,甚至动用暴力镇压人民的反抗时,社会矛盾就会越来越激化,最终导致整个社会崩溃,甚至引发全国性的战争。 以下是一些历史案例: 法国大革命:贵族的剥削引发全国动荡 18世纪的法国,贵族和皇室掌握着大量财富,而普通人民则被高额税赋压得喘不过气来。政府不仅不考虑社会改革,反而加强对底层民众的压榨。 最终,民怨彻底爆发,法国大革命席卷全国,国王路易十六被送上断头台,整个国家陷入长时间的动荡。虽然革命最终催生了新的社会制度,但整个过程充满了混乱和血腥,人民的生活并未立刻改善。真正导致法国陷入动荡的,并不是无政府状态,而是旧制度的极端不公。 刚果自由邦:殖民暴政导致数百万生灵涂炭 刚果自由邦(1885-1908)是比利时国王利奥波德二世的私人殖民地,在他的极端残暴统治下,数百万刚果人死于强迫劳动、饥饿、疾病和屠杀。以“文明化”为幌子,刚果被变成榨取橡胶和象牙的血汗工厂,不完成配额者会被砍手、砍脚,甚至全村遭屠杀。比利时政府和欧洲列强长期默许,直到1908年才接管刚果。利奥波德二世积累巨额财富,而刚果人民陷入贫困和社会崩溃,暴政的长期影响至今未消。 这个例子表明,一个残暴政府比无政府状态更可怕,因为它能够系统性地镇压和剥削,使整个社会陷入深渊。 结论:政府不是问题的根源,制度才是关键 从历史的角度来看,天下大乱和生灵涂炭的根本原因,并不在于政府的存在与否,而在于政府的制度是否合理。如果一个政府施行苛政,它不仅无法维持社会秩序,反而会成为社会动荡的直接推手。 无政府状态未必导致全面崩溃,而苛政则几乎必然会引发社会的极端混乱。真正决定社会是否稳定、人民是否幸福的,是政府的治理模式和制度设计。 历史的教训:避免苛政,才能实现长久稳定 苛政猛于虎,唯有真正尊重和保障个体的权利,建立合理的治理体系,社会才能真正走向繁荣和长治久安。

read more

Related Content

The Cost of Extending Pension Contribution Periods
The Cost of Extending Pension Contribution Periods
Avatar photo
Kishou · Feb 1, 2026
Introduction: A Global Surrender of Time Amid a profound global demographic reversal, virtually all modern nations are performing the same quiet yet decisive institutional surgery: delaying retirement ages, extending contribution periods, and recalibrating benefit expectations. Technocrats package this transformation as “the necessary response to the aging crisis,” while fiscal departments frame it as “rational adjustments […]
How the Socio-Civic Economy Reconstructs “Employment, Unemployment, and Basic Income Systems”
How the Socio-Civic Economy Reconstructs “Employment, Unemployment, and Basic Income Systems”
Avatar photo
Kishou · Feb 5, 2026
Preface: Employment is Not Just a “Livelihood,” but a Basic License for Civic Existence In capitalist ideology, “employment” is brutally reduced to a purely instrumental equation: “Job → Income → Survival.” This logic chains human existence to capital’s hiring whims, systematically equating joblessness with social worthlessness. Unemployment becomes morally weaponized—branded as proof of personal inadequacy, market […]
Why systems matter more than tech
Why systems matter more than tech
Avatar photo
Kishou · Jun 13, 2025
This passage emphasizes that the key to civilizational progress lies in systems, not technology. A system defines how social resources are organized and how power is structured. Its flexibility determines whether institutions can improve and whether technology can be used effectively—ultimately shaping the direction of civilization. A healthy system drives prosperity; a rigid one leads to collapse. Technology only serves the system.
How to Change the Fate of Modern Slaves
How to Change the Fate of Modern Slaves
Avatar photo
Yicheng · Feb 3, 2025
Societal problems are problems in life In modern society, workers, as a key force driving economic development, often face challenges such as low wages, long working hours, high pressure, and a lack of opportunities for advancement, which gradually makes them passive “modern slaves.” Their plight not only reflects deep-rooted issues within the social structure but […]
View All Content