4.1. The Problem of Wealth and Poverty - The Psychology of Poverty and Wealth

Inequality in society attracted the attention of scientists long before Adam Smith. The main criterion of inequality is wealth, money. The rest - power, prestige, reputation, privileges, control of resources - are closely associated with it. Due to inequality, the relations of people in society have always been in a state of fragile equilibrium, broken in the event of a deterioration in the lives of the poor, and increased pressure on them. Roman Caesars fed plebs. The desire for equality, which was accompanied by "pulling up" the lives of the poor, but without destroying the rich, tried to justify the XIX century egalitarianists. It was only in the 20th century that social policy began to be implemented on a mass scale.

This policy helps to neutralize dissatisfaction with the plight, really helps people and creates the appearance of striving for equality. Conducting a social policy revealed a special category of “parasites” who are ready to live on welfare all their life. Therefore, a social policy in the West is accompanied by a religion-supported policy of instilling disrespect for a parasitic existence.

The financial situation of a person affects his image in the eyes of other people. Rich people are perceived as happy, healthy, fit. Poor - unhappy and unsuitable, lazy. They make up the majority of the population in the world. The poverty threshold is considered to be the possibility to spend less than $ 4 per day. The range of attitudes towards the poor starts from complete contempt, not providing any assistance to pulling up their situation to quite acceptable living standards (social programs, funds, charity). Moreover, the use of social programs tend, for the most part, rich countries and rich people. In poor countries with a large number of nouveau riche attitude towards the poor scornful and merciless.

Of course, the poor poor - discord. It should be isolated from the total mass of the poor people of a certain mental makeup: they have no needs for things, beauty or equipment, they are lazy, they have no desire to work, something to do. When they are given freedom, they gladly fall on the sofa. If they work, then only for the sake of earning, often one-day. For the sake of preserving their position and psychology, essentially the homeless, they are ready to destroy the civilized world.

A different type of personality is a master of his craft whom society pays for labor too little. In conditions of closeness, such a situation in society can exist for quite a long time. But in open societies, inevitably, there is a "washing out" of specialists. A person knows his own worth and wants to earn according to his qualifications. Here comes the rule - no money, no masters. It is not for nothing that talented musicians are leaving Russia (their training, and then the work, is actually very expensive, but here, both under the Soviet regime and now, the opera singer receives 10 times less fee than the pop artist working under plywood ). Scientists are leaving, especially young ones, not necessarily outstanding, but those who can, for a while or for good.

Walter Oiken put forward the concept of socially sound economic policy. For most of the members of society, it is important to achieve an equitable distribution, carried out according to the marginal productivity of the factors of production. Starting from the 1930s, this problem has become the nerve-knot of economic regulation. The main point here is not interest in absolute equality, but the principle “live and let live”. Each person and social group has a finite limit of needs (or slowly growing, which is equivalent in a developing society). They are enough to satisfy for a sense of equality.

In the process of the development of society, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, and the balance between them is almost never achieved. Social programs should be as flexible as possible and adapted to the national characteristics of countries.