The poorest is the one who... “The poorest is the one who does not know how to use what he has

P. Baust.

The standard of living is understood as the degree of provision with goods, services and living conditions necessary for a comfortable and safe existence. Why do some manage to achieve a high standard of living and prosperity, while others cannot escape poverty? This is where the words of P. Baust come to mind: “The poorest is the one who does not know how to use what he has.” The author talks about economic problem limited resources. Happiness does not lie in the quantity of resources, but in the ability to manage your limited resources in such a way that you can maximally provide for your unlimited needs.

One cannot but agree with this opinion, especially since life itself provides us with many examples of this problem.

Japan, for example, is considered one of the richest countries today, although historically it has very limited resources. And Russia, one of the few countries with the most extensive and numerous resources, is far from rich country. And this proves that the condition for the level of well-being is the effective use of available factors of production: land, capital, labor, entrepreneurship and information.

The level of well-being depends to a large extent on the perfection of economic mechanisms, i.e. ways and forms of combining people’s efforts in solving life support problems. Such economic mechanisms include division of labor, specialization and trade. They create conditions for achieving high labor productivity and allow the exchange of produced goods on a mutually beneficial basis. An example is a comparison of the lives of African tribes based on subsistence farming and life Western European countries, the basis of whose economy is commodity farming.

Use of outdated technologies, low level personnel qualifications, wasteful use natural resources also affects the standard of living.

A striking example of the ability to use what they have is Japan. Elements of the “Japanese economic miracle” include strict control over foreign trade. The import of any products that could be or were produced in the country was excluded. Another lever was the introduction of advanced technologies, which the Japanese bought all over the world. This allowed them to save on their own scientific developments, and the introduction of technologies earlier than in the countries that developed them gave a significant advantage in international competition. At the expense of the corporation, the qualifications and level of education of workers are improved. High quality and relative low cost Japanese goods allowed them to quickly and successfully conquer world markets, and the state and citizens to grow rich.

ECONOMY.

1. “Money is freedom forged in gold.”

(E.M. Remarque)

It's hard to disagree with the German writer. Freedom is the ability of a person to satisfy any needs. For example, with the help of money you can satisfy all physiological needs (housing, food, etc.), you can satisfy social needs(communication, travel, etc.). With the help of money, prestigious needs are fulfilled (an expensive car, branded clothes, etc.), spiritual needs can also be satisfied with the help of money (a ticket to a concert of a famous performer, expensive book etc.).

Having money makes a person independent. Money makes it possible to the owner do as he wants. For example, buy any goods, give them as collateral, or exchange them for securities. He, compared to a person without money, has a huge advantage in realizing his desires; he is economically free. Money is a universal commodity equivalent, expressing the value of goods and serving as an intermediary in their exchange for each other. The owner can use them in different ways: purchase goods and services (circulation function), pay off debts or obligatory payments with them (payment function), put them in the bank to increase the amount of money (accumulation function), etc. The owner of money can organize his own production, because it has the initial capital, and start entrepreneurial activity. Thus, money makes a person free in relation to what he accepts. economic decisions, so we can say that money is freedom.

But this freedom is forged from gold, according to Remarque, because gold backing was established for money in Remarque’s time, that is, each unit of currency corresponded to a certain established mass of gold. One of the functions of money is “treasure”, i.e. a means of accumulation, and where there are treasures, there can be no freedom. Gold weighs a lot and has a lot behind it. Many people believe that only the poor, who have nothing to lose, are truly free. Wealth is considered a great test for a person and not all people cope with it with dignity, otherwise a writer like Remarque would not have touched on this topic, contrasting freedom and gold. It's about about economic responsibility.

Money for a person should remain a means, but not an end. And freedom lies in how to spend it, because... It is known that to whom much is given, much is required. It is no coincidence that among rich people there are many who do charity work. Not long ago, the famous Bill Gates announced that he was retiring and that he intended to spend his enormous fortune, minus some interest in favor of his children, on education and children's healthcare. Next to wealth there should always be charity, this was also the case with our Russian entrepreneurs, thanks to whom we have the Tretyakov Gallery, the Moscow Art Theater, etc. How sometimes you want to help a sick child for whom the whole “world” is raising money for an operation or expensive medicines! How many people probably envy the rich at such a moment, who have such an opportunity, the main thing is to make the right choice, because freedom is the opportunity to choose, and money should help make the right choice, because it is “freedom forged from gold.”

2. “Prices and other market instruments regulate the distribution of rare resources in society, thereby limiting the desires of participants, coordinating their actions.”

(G.S. Becker)

What does price mean and what other market instruments did Becker have in mind? Price is the monetary expression of the value of a product. Speaking about other market instruments, the author most likely meant supply and demand and their interaction. More precisely, the law of demand (there is an inversely proportional relationship between price and volume of demand; when the price increases, the volume of demand decreases) and the law of supply (there is a direct relationship between the volume of supply and the price of a product, i.e., as the product increases, the volume of supply increases). Thus, price, the laws of supply and demand regulate the market, the number of participants in it, and coordinate their actions. And it’s hard to disagree with this. For example, the oil industry is highly profitable. However, not everyone can engage in oil production, since this activity requires expensive equipment that not only small entrepreneurs, but even some countries cannot afford. Or another example, black and red caviar are a delicacy, everyone would like to have them on their table, but because of the high cost, not every family can afford it. The production of caviar is limited, otherwise the price of caviar will fall, and the profit will remain unchanged both with an increased volume, but a low price, and with a low volume, but a high selling price. On the other hand, it contributes to the conservation of limited natural resources. The main principle of the market is that a transaction should be beneficial to both the seller and the buyer. Thanks to this, all people (and therefore the entire society) achieve the best results for themselves, and society’s resources are distributed most rationally. Price and other market instruments act as an invisible hand that regulates scarce resources in the economy.

3. “Trade has never ruined a single nation.”

(B. Franklin)

The author wanted to say that engaging in trading activities is useful for society, this can lead to its prosperity. I think we have to agree with this. Trade has evolved since the development of social relations. Some sell, others buy. Trade also took place when there were no coins. Money could be animal skins, precious metals, etc. Trade is the most common form of exchange in which ownership of a good (good, service) passes from one to another through money. Trade can serve as a unifying factor for a country and even the world. Let's take for example Ancient Rus'. Trade truly united Rus'. Merchant caravans stretched along land roads and rivers. Carts with grain from the Dnieper region went to Novgorod; Salt was brought from Volyn to all lands; from north to south - furs, fish. Russian merchants brought leather, wax, linen for sails, silver and bone products to other countries. Foreign goods arrived from other countries: fabrics, weapons, gems, jewelry, church utensils, wine. Thus, the path “from the Varangians to the Greeks” contributed to the development Eastern Slavs and became one of the prerequisites for the formation of their state.

Foreign trade helps to improve relations with countries even when they have many political contradictions, such as Russia and Japan have a dispute over the Kuril Islands, but this does not interfere with building mutually beneficial trade relations.

In order for a country to enter the world market, it needs to have export resources, that is, stocks of competitive goods and services that are in demand, currency or other means of paying for imports, as well as a developed foreign trade infrastructure: vehicles, warehouses, communications facilities, etc. Settlements for foreign trade transactions are made by banking organizations, and the country's insurance business insures cargo and transportation. Of course, if necessary, you can use the services of other countries, but these are expensive services, and each country participating in the world market strives to create its own infrastructure, which leads to a general rise in the level of development of the state.

Trade not only has not ruined a single nation, but is the first and oldest form international relations, which is very important in our difficult, contradictory world.

4. “Not to be greedy is already wealth, not to be wasteful is income.”

(M. Montaigne)

This statement is akin to the saying: “It is not the one who has a lot of money who is rich, but the one who has fewer needs.” The problem of economics is, as we know, the unlimited needs of society in conditions of limited resources. One of the solutions to this problem is to reduce needs to reasonable limits and save resources, which is what the author talks about, and with which one cannot but agree. Each person determines for himself whether he is rich or not, although sometimes his assessment is based on comparison with other people. To a greedy man There's always something missing. There are many such striking examples world literature: Plyushkin, Stingy Knight, Gobsek, etc. IN modern life everything is the same: someone doesn’t have enough money for a two-level apartment, and he considers himself poor, and someone considers himself rich, because... he has bread on his table every day. Cultivating reasonable needs in a person is the task of a civilized society, the solution of which will help solve global problem with the depletion of natural resources, due to which so much blood is shed throughout the world today. Suffice it to recall the conflicts in the Middle East, where a real battle for control over oil and gas took place.

Wealth is not only the absence of greed, but also frugality, rationalism and pragmatism. Income is the totality of all financial resources received by a person necessary to pay for the material side of his life. Expenditures of the population are called consumption. A rational consumer must be guided by the rational organization of his life, efficient production activities, and optimization of consumption. If you are not a rational consumer, a situation may arise where expenses will exceed income. And here a lot depends not on the amount of wealth a person has, but on the ability to manage it. There have been many cases in history when rich nobles brought their fortunes to bankruptcy, but there were many peasants who, thanks to their work and savings, became prosperous, for example the Morozovs, Putilovs, Bakhrushins. Or another example: Ford began his career with the first car. If he had spent the money received only on current needs, he would never have been able to start a company.

Thus, one cannot be an acquisitive and egoistic consumer, overwhelmed by the thirst to possess everything. The ability to save and manage capital rationally is a necessary condition for the efficient use of resources, and, consequently, a successful comfortable existence individual person and society as a whole.

5. “Competition - the only method mutual coordination of our individual actions without coercion or arbitrary interference by authorities.”

(F. Hayek)

Competition in economics refers to the rivalry between participants economic activity in the struggle to achieve better results. It seems to me that given by the author the definition of competition pinpoints its essence. The word "competition" means special kind equestrian competitions - overcoming various obstacles. From this word comes the word “competition” - competition, rivalry to achieve certain advantages. Competition is a regulator not only of economic, but also political, cultural, interpersonal relationships. Competition performs the function of mutual coordination of our actions without interference from authorities: people compete for best results, big profits, best conditions life. In the course of competition, they objectively change the objects around them, their relationships, adapt to each other, strive to keep up with others, that is, they carry out mutual coordination of actions. Competition and struggle between producers of goods and services existed from the first steps in the development of commodity production. It is one of the main conditions of a market economy. For example, on the market some product is presented in excess, i.e. the supply quantity greater than the value demand. This is where the law of competition comes into play: by increasing efficiency, a manufacturer can reduce production costs, reduce the cost of goods, improve their quality and, ultimately, reduce prices for their goods. This will “spur” other manufacturers to respond. A decrease in price will lead to an increase in the quantity demanded for this product. Thus, competition can, without any government intervention, regulate supply and demand and coordinate the actions of various producers. In countries Western Europe and the USA until the end of the 19th century. the state almost did not interfere in economic processes. But free competition over time led to the emergence of large firms that began to control entire industries, i.e. became monopolists. The essence of a monopoly is economic dictatorship by establishing monopoly high (or low) prices to obtain monopoly high profits. Monopoly begets high prices, a mismatch between supply and demand, widens the gap between rich and poor. There is a need for protection economic interests entrepreneurs and consumers. In the USA already at the end of the 19th century. Antitrust laws appeared, which the state used to improve the market system. The modern market is significantly different from the market of free competition. In developed countries, there is a mixed economy in which the invisible market mechanism and government regulation operate simultaneously. The modern market economy is not chaos and anarchy, although it does not eliminate the market element, it is a proven mechanism for coordinating the activities of commodity producers and consumers, which develops along with society. With the development of civilization, the market also becomes civilized. Since the 90s of the XX century. Russia is following the path of a modern market economy. Anti-monopoly laws were adopted, including the Law “On Competition and Restriction of Monopolistic Activities in Product Markets.” But there is no once and for all defined combination of planned and market elements of regulation for any economic circumstances. For each specific historical situation it is necessary to search for an optimal combination of market and state mechanisms for regulating the economy. Other examples of competition not related to economics can be cited: competition musical groups, presidential elections, entrance exams, etc. Despite the fact that everywhere there is an element of competition, rivalry, these examples are also united by the presence certain rules, common to everyone.

6. “In business and in sports, too many people are afraid of competition. As a result, people avoid pursuing success if it requires hard work, training and sacrifice.” K. Rockne.

The word "competition" comes from sports. “Show jumping” is a special type of equestrian competition, overcoming various obstacles. Many people take part in the competition, but not everyone reaches the finish line, and only a few rise to the podium as winners. Before the competition there were long, grueling training sessions, injuries, tears and stress. But victory for the most worthy is a moment that redeems everything. The author of the statement compares competition in sports with competition in business, and I understand his position. In economics, sellers of goods and services compete with each other, trying to attract as many buyers as possible. They also take risks, just like athletes, but the rule applies here too: “The higher the bar, the higher the jump.” The risks of an entrepreneur are the funds invested in the business, reputation, health, and sometimes even life. Not everyone is ready for this; many “leave the race” without tasting the fruits of victory. Competition promotes rational use limited resources, stimulates the reduction of production and sales costs, increasing production efficiency, improving the consumer properties of goods; at the same time, it leads to differentiation of incomes of producers and consumers, in as a last resort- to ruin. Many in business are afraid of competition, and as a result, they do not achieve high altitudes, but remain at the level of mediocrity.

Big, well-known firms weren't always like this. For example, the Apple company, founded by Steve Jobbe. Together in the garage they developed their programs. There was a lot of work, risks, fighting with competitors, and now this is the best computer campaign with several hundred thousand employees.

Thus, in order to achieve success, to reach your heights, you need to work hard, be ready for self-sacrifice, have patience and endurance, and most importantly, not be afraid of competition and move towards your goal.

“Nature creates man, but society develops and forms him” (V.G. Belinsky).

I think that the words of V.G. Belinsky perfectly illustrate the biosocial essence of man. Throughout his life, a person goes through learning to live in society, that is, going through the process of socialization - familiarization with traditional values, the foundations of the world around him. This process is limited by two poles: birth and death. From early childhood, a person is surrounded by primary agents of socialization: family, kindergarten, school. Forming character and worldviews are the main tasks of primary agents. Secondary agents of socialization, such as universities, professional institutions, workplace, form a picture of the vast surrounding world and man’s place in it. Thanks to the agents of socialization, a person becomes an individual, manifests his individual characteristics and abilities to interact with people. A person can determine who he is by comparing himself with other people, listening to the opinions of others. By Maslow's theories there is a pyramid human needs. The foundation of the pyramid is biological needs(thirst, hunger, sleep, procreation); in the middle of the pyramid there are social needs (work, self-realization); and the highest are spiritual needs (cognition, worldview). All needs are closely interconnected. A person cannot live without food, water, and air, and then he cannot live without communication with other people. History knows the facts that without communication with people a person goes crazy, and without developing his intellectual abilities, he ceases to be a person and lives on a natural level, satisfying biological needs.
Thus, fundamental basis a person is his biological essence, and the core basis is his social one. I completely agree with the opinion of the famous writer V.G. Belinsky that “nature creates man, but society develops and shapes him.”

“Progress is a movement in a circle, but more and more quickly.” L. Levinson.

I cannot completely agree with L. Levinson’s statement, which characterizes the progress of mankind as movement in a circle, despite the fact that the majority of social scientists consider progress forward movement forward. I believe that humanity, from the moment of its origin to the present time, is in constant movement. Science, technology, and the human mind are developing, and if we compare primitive times and our days, it is clear that human society progresses. From the primitive herd we came to the state, from primitive tools to perfect technology, and if formerly man couldn't explain these natural phenomena, like a thunderstorm or a change of year, then by now he has already mastered space. Based on these considerations, I cannot agree with L. Levinson’s point of view on progress as a cyclical movement. In my opinion, such an understanding of history means marking time without moving forward, constant repetition...
Time will never turn back, no matter what factors contribute to regression. A person will always solve any problem and prevent the extinction of his kind.
Of course, history has always had its ups and downs, which is why I believe that the graph of human progress is an upward trend. broken line, in which the upswings prevail in magnitude over the downturns, but not a straight line or a circle. This can be verified by recalling some historical or life facts.
First of all, dips in the progress chart create wars. For example, Rus' began its history as a powerful state, capable of outstripping any other in its development. But as a result Tatar-Mongol invasion it fell behind for many years, there was a decline in culture and the development of life in the country. But, despite everything, Rus' stood up and continued to move forward.
Secondly, the progress of society is hampered by such a form of organization of power as dictatorship. In the absence of freedom, society cannot progress; a person turns from a thinking being into a tool in the hands of a dictator. This can be seen in the example fascist Germany: Hitler’s regime slowed down political progress, the development of freedom and human rights, and democratic institutions for decades.
Thirdly, oddly enough, sometimes declines in the development of society occur through the fault of the person himself, i.e. associated with scientific and technological progress. Many people now prefer to communicate with machines human communication. As a result, the level of humanity drops. Invention nuclear reactors- this, of course, is a great discovery that allows us to save natural energy resources, but in addition to nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons were also created, which brought innumerable troubles to people and nature. An example of this is nuclear bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Chernobyl explosion. But nevertheless, humanity came to its senses, realizing real threat such weapons: in many countries there is now a moratorium on the production nuclear weapons.
Thus, progress is obvious human mind and society as a whole and predominance in history positive action people over their mistakes. It is also obvious that social progress– this is not an endless movement in a circle, which, in principle, cannot be considered progress, but a movement forward and only forward.

"Freedom is the right to inequality"

I agree with this statement because I believe that freedom is the main characteristic human existence, its essence, and at the same time, the historical experience of mankind, unfortunately, shows that people do not equally enjoy this freedom. As the German philosopher Hegel wrote: “Freedom is a perceived necessity.” Personal freedom in its various manifestations appears today the most important value civilized society. But in order to understand its full significance, it is necessary to turn to examples from history.
A natural feature of human development is the uneven distribution of freedom between representatives of various estates, layers, classes, which gives rise to uneven distribution rights between people, and leads to social and legal inequality. Even in primitive society there were elders and chiefs, distinguished by their rights and responsibilities and occupying more high position compared to other tribesmen. The most striking example showing the importance of freedom for a person is slavery - historically the first and most brutal form of exploitation, in which a slave, along with the instruments of labor production, was the property of his master - the slave owner. In the history of Russia such an example is serfdom. But each new stage of social development adds new qualities to the freedom and equality of people, spreading them to an ever wider range of subjects.
In the very in a general sense freedom of speech is the ability to choose action that does not depend on any external force, so she, like many social values, needs the right. Law gives freedom social quality, in which the activity of each person is consistent with the activity of other people. Law is a measure of freedom. After all, unlimited freedom gives rise to crime: if a person has committed a crime and has not been subjected to any punishment for it, he will believe that everything is permitted to him and will begin to commit more and more crimes. And as the great Roman statesman Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote: “By sparing criminals, they harm honest people" But to combat violations of the law, the state needs not only to tighten punishments and enforce them, but also to develop legal consciousness among its citizens. People must learn to respect laws and consider it their duty to comply with them. And the law, in turn, must be humane, fair, but at the same time, as Charles Montesquieu said, “look like death that spares no one.”
But why, then, in a modern society that guarantees equality, is there a problem of different distribution of freedom and, as a consequence, the emergence of inequality?
The reason for this problem has remained the same throughout human history. People unite in the process of their life, and human society represents many different social groups. Various social groups occupy different position in a society that is defined by unequal rights and privileges, responsibilities and duties, property and income, attitudes towards authority and influence among members of its community, and subsequently different amounts legal freedom. Social differentiation - the division of society into social groups was and is the main obstacle to the formation rule of law. And as world experience shows, on social development, including legal, the greatest influence is exerted not by the interests of all social groups, but only by those in power: the exploiting classes and the ruling elites.
Freedom is the right to inequality, because what does a person have more possibilities, the more privileges. And therefore, “freedom,” as O. Bismarck wrote, “is a luxury that not everyone can afford.”

“Only a being with intelligence can be irrational. Animals do not commit unreasonable actions" (T. Oizerman)

In this saying, Oizerman, with which I absolutely agree, raises the problem of a person’s responsible attitude towards the products of his mental activity.
This problem, in my opinion, is modern world relevant. Indeed, according to the theory of anthroposociogenesis, man, as a biopsychosocial being, has the most highly organized essence, has developed thinking and consciousness. He has the power to create an artificial environment, to use the forces of nature to create something new. For example, the famous scientist D. Sakharov was one of the developers atomic weapons, hydrogen bomb. The theory of nuclear fission can bring benefits, or it can cause irreparable harm to nature, society, and people. D. Sakharov then spoke about this in his speeches.
Indeed, a person can achieve a goal by choosing means and methods of activity. And he can choose an immoral, evil method. A striking example of this is deviant behavior, namely delinquency. For example, a knife can serve as a murder weapon, or the painkiller morphine can serve as a drug.
But the behavior of animals is always predictable, because... it reflects the instincts inherent in nature. A person has already studied animals well and knows what to expect from them.
Thus, thanks to thinking, man invented many objects, things, theories, teachings. He can use all this for the benefit of himself, society, nature, or maybe for harm. Everything depends on the moral state of a person, what value and moral guidelines he uses. Words Russian philosopher and the historian Solovyov, “A person can be defined as an animal that is ashamed” confirm the idea that a person chooses how to act and is responsible for his actions, which should be based on moral standards, but this is not always the case.

“Humanity is only a habit, the fruit of civilization. It can completely disappear." F.M.Dostoevsky

Humanity (humanism) is philanthropy, awareness of one’s own value and the value of another person. Humanism emphasizes precisely human qualities personality, that which distinguishes him from the animal world, and introduces him to the sphere of the spiritual.
“Man stands at the center of the world” - this is the motto of the humanists of the Middle Ages (this is where the origins of this teaching are located).

In modern social science, humanism includes two directions: anthropocentrism and individualism.
Representatives of humanistic views believe that a good or at least neutral principle is inherent in human nature. Destructive forces in people are the result of unmet needs, and not some kind of congenital defects. Indeed, humanism was born against the background of the material well-being of the Italian nobility and bohemians (artists, writers), when their physiological needs were satisfied, people felt safe. Then the desire for the main content of humanism (according to Maslow) arose - the creative transformation of the surrounding world.
It is obvious that Maslow's teachings coincide with the worldview of the great Russian writer of the 19th century, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. However, like Dostoevsky, I am not sure that humanity will always preach the ideals of humanism. After all, times may come when, most likely, it will strive for survival. For example, a new world war, a universal catastrophe that could bring humanity to the brink of survival.

But in everyday life without global upheavals, the values of humanism need propaganda and protection. For example, the second generation rights from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which secure a person’s right to spiritual improvement.
Much, of course, depends in this matter on the individual principles of each person. There are people who, on a ship in distress, first save women and children, and then save themselves. These are personalities with a capital P. They will not be able to live in peace if they do otherwise.

Thus, I would transform the idea of F.M. Dostoevsky that humanity is the fruit of civilization into the idea that humanity, unfortunately, is a “piece goods” modern society. And in order not to lose yourself in this society, always remaining human, and seeing and appreciating the “human” in others like yourself, it is important not to lose respect for human values and in any situation just remain human.

“Man is unthinkable outside of society” (L.N. Tolstoy)

The poorest is the one who does not know how to use what he has.
Pierre Buast

In today's world, completely permeated with money, you can only feel confident if you learn to navigate financial matters. Meanwhile modern man, oddly enough, they never taught finance; the subject “Money” is not taught in schools. Lack of Russian citizens habits of using services financial institutions and understanding the intricacies of legal documents really hinders the development of the national economy.

What is financial literacy? In a market society, a person has been using money and credit cards since childhood. He understands exactly what savings are, the difference between deposits, fixed-term and variable interest, pension funds, insurance, loans. This is the minimum that a person should own in any case, because we have credit cards, we have insurance everywhere - car, life, health, and so on, that is, there is a level that everyone should know. There is a second stage - more high level- these are mortgages, securities, bonds - government, private, mutual funds. Here you need to understand what to invest in and what your risks are. To be financially literate, you need to have information. The first is simple knowledge for everyone, the second is more complete and voluminous knowledge for those who have deposits, and they must manage them correctly and not lose them. There should be a government program designed specifically to teach the basics financial literacy:

financial plan

Unfortunately, many do not have this knowledge. The vast majority of clients of Russian banks have the most superficial understanding of the essence of the services offered. And this is explained, first of all, by their complexity: one standard deposit agreement takes at least two pages of dense text, reading which, not to mention understanding, takes considerable time. Of course, the bank must make every effort to ensure that the client understands the proposed conditions. And here a lot depends on legal service, marketers and, of course, advertising specialists, whose task is to tell a potential client about the product long before he comes to the bank.

For our country, the problem of financial education of the population is not new. It has been acutely facing society for the last 10-15 years, during which a huge number of people have been drawn into various kinds of financial scams. Enough to remember financial pyramid"MMM", which managed to collect hundreds of millions of dollars. But the seriousness and scale of this problem does not allow one bank or financial institution to achieve its solution. Moreover, the problem of financial illiteracy cannot be considered only as a relationship between two parties: financial institutions and the population. This problem to a large extent affects the state. After all, the long-predicted problem of non-payments, primarily on express loans, concerns the entire society as a whole. And if this happens sooner or later, then everyone will have to look for a solution: banks, clients and, of course, the state. That is why the search for a solution to eliminate financial illiteracy must take into account the interests of all three parties.

Today, our population has a rather low level of awareness of financial services, products, as well as the rules for their provision and use.

Research public opinion show that it is not going to learn. Most surveys of the population show not only a lack of sufficient knowledge in financial matters, but also an unwillingness to independently increase their level of awareness. In perception significant amount banks still remain inaccessible to citizens financial institutions. Thus, according to NAFI, about 47% of respondents believe that banks are intended mainly for wealthy clients. About 62% of respondents believe that banking products and services are difficult to understand. And almost 64% of citizens demonstrate distrust of financial institutions in general, believing that investing money in banks is risky.

Thus, the majority of the population is still inclined to invest their money in traditional financial mechanisms and institutions. And against the background of growing savings, and, accordingly, the development of the investment potential of the population, this becomes a serious obstacle to the full involvement and full participation of citizens in financial markets.

The meaning of the statement is that those people who do not value what they have, what surrounds them, experience “poverty”. There is “poverty”, material and spiritual.

Material poverty means that a person is unable to satisfy his material needs due to a lack of available material resources.

And the spiritual poor is considered to be a person who has a deficiency or lack of moral values and feelings to satisfy spiritual needs. Such a person is not able to recognize the beauty in the world around him.

I share the point of view of the French lexicographer.

I believe that a materially rich but spiritually poor person cannot fully live happily; such a person is doomed to misfortune.

To support my point of view, I will give examples from fiction and life experience.

Mr. from San Francisco story of the same name I. A. Bunina is a financially rich, wealthy person. But he has absolutely no human feelings(“He, like anyone who has experienced rocking, only really wanted to eat, with pleasure

dreamed of the first spoon of soup, the first sip of wine and performed the usual toilet routine even in some excitement, which left no time for feelings and reflections.” He is not able to experience the beauty of nature, the beauty of art and the surrounding world in general. Spiritual poverty leads the master to death, because all he did was engage in intense and meaningless work, saving for the future.” real life”, relaxation, all the pleasures and entertainment.

Boris Berezovsky is a Russian entrepreneur and businessman. As of 2012, he was on the list of 100 richest businessmen Russia, but after some time it was ruined. Why did this happen? Because he was a spiritually poor man, he had a thirst for wealth, love of money, because of which Berezovsky filed a lawsuit against Roman Abramovich for compensation large amount money. They lost the trial. Boris needed to pay legal fees, which led to impoverishment. The ruin caused psychological decline, and soon the businessman committed suicide.

Thus, a person who does not value what he has and what surrounds him is considered poor, which means that P. Buast’s statement is true. The true, main wealth of a person is spiritual values and knowledge.

(No ratings yet)

The poorest is the one who... “The poorest is the one who does not know how to use what he has

Other works on this topic: