The myth of getting rich overnight, the legend of being imprisoned, there are too many stories around lottery in the past 20 years. Some people are crazy, some people are crazy, and China lottery has been stumbling for 20 years. This world-class industry has reached a node in China lottery for 20 years. (July 26, Hebei Youth Daily)

Twenty years ago, the lottery in China was "get on the bus first, then buy the ticket". During this period, the BMW lottery case, the theft case of Handan Agricultural Bank, and the fake ball case of Hubei Sports Lottery were all chaotic.

Many city newspapers open up thriving lottery classics, TV and other media every day, and realize their amazing dreams night after night. Even Peking University has opened a lottery master's class ... The lottery industry in China is busy, and driving without a license is rampant. In the eyes of westerners, gambling is an economic game manipulated by God, and experts define it as a special financial voucher to use people's desire to get rich by luck to raise social idle funds and use them for social welfare undertakings. However, when the lottery industry raises funds with love, it is easy to fall into two paradoxes: first, all irregular games will inevitably produce gambler psychology; Second, almost all countries that issue lottery tickets in the world claim that the purpose of issuing lottery tickets is to help the poor, and once the lottery industry is misleading and harmful, the poor will be the first to suffer.

These two terrible consequences are not far away from us: First, in the case of the theft of Handan Agricultural Bank, two suspects used 43 million yuan of the stolen bank funds of 5 1 10,000 yuan to buy lottery tickets, of which the most one bought 1 4 1 10,000 yuan. A former director of Jiangsu Sports Lottery Management Center said that the lottery sales quota is ineffective, and there are more and more pathological gamblers, which is related to the irregular operation of the lottery industry; Secondly, if we look at the groups currently queuing at the city lottery sales outlets, we will know that most of the low-income people and vulnerable groups are crazy about the bottom line quality of life with the encouragement of lottery tickets. It can be said that the drawbacks of the lottery issuance system in China and the absence of the Lottery Law have made China lottery streaking for 20 years.

Britain issued the national lottery in 1994, seven years later than China, but the country promulgated two national lottery laws in 1993 and 1998 respectively. South Africa began preparations in 1996. In 1997, the Parliament passed the lottery law, and it was not until 1999 that the lottery was issued. China's pending lottery legislation may be precisely because the legislature cannot coordinate the interests of issuers and relevant departments. China Welfare Lottery Center is under the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and China Sports Lottery Center is under the State Sports General Administration. At present, the distribution of lottery public welfare funds is regulated by the Ministry of Finance in principle. The civil affairs department and the sports department each account for 50% of the public welfare fund, and the rest are distributed in eight major fields, such as helping students, helping the disabled, environmental protection, social security and the Olympics. Many competent departments want to expand the allocation quota, and more other departments are eager to share a piece of it; As soon as the theory of lottery legislation changes, the distribution of departmental interests has become the biggest problem before the law-lottery players have lost their basic right to speak and participate in legislation.

In fact, this legislative problem is not difficult to solve: as long as we jump out of the traditional management system and supervision measures of China's lottery market and adopt the posture of national lottery legislation, we will generally clarify the management institutions, issuers, distribution purposes and purposes, and the distribution ratio of various funds in lottery issuance, and the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) will take the lead in legislation to restore departmental lottery tickets to the true colors of national lottery tickets and follow the principle of benefiting lottery players to draw up the relevant rigid order of lottery industry. At present, it is especially necessary to purify the public opinion environment of lottery: from the perspective of probability and statistics, lottery is a pure random game (except football lottery and basketball lottery). ), in which personal knowledge doesn't work at all. Strangely, why should we avoid this huge speculative risk and infinitely enlarge the speculative income? You might as well print a lottery risk warning on the lottery ticket just like smoking is harmful to your health. China Lottery, which has been streaking for 20 years, should be changed. (

The "green GDP" project, which has just been launched for three years (that is, deducting the cost of environmental resources and protecting environmental resources from the current GDP), has been "postponed indefinitely" to release the report. Starting from the "green GDP" project, public opinion almost overwhelmingly supported the release of the "green GDP report" and firmly believed that the implementation of "green GDP" was urgent. Most people agree that if "green GDP" is used as the assessment index, local officials will not pursue growth unilaterally, but will pay more attention to local environmental development than before. In this way, the local environment can be better protected.

After the "green GDP" project ran aground, Southern Metropolis Daily published an editorial on 24th, arguing that "green GDP is the fate of every China" and "green GDP" helps us to understand how much environmental and social costs economic growth has achieved, and draws a conclusion that only those growth with the lowest environmental costs are worth pursuing. However, the difficulties of this ideal model abound in reality. In the affluent Pearl River Delta and Yangtze River Delta regions, "green GDP" is a kind of containment to the local over-exploitation environment. However, if we ask for economic growth in the poverty-stricken areas in the central and western regions that is compatible with environmental protection goals, it is tantamount to asking a person who can't solve the problem of food and clothing to enjoy elegant art.

Based on the self-evident premise that "green GDP" is a good thing, all parties agree to use "green GDP" to assess local officials. But we seem to forget that any public policy always has its advantages and disadvantages. If "green GDP" is a good thing, we must also answer the question of "for whom".

For any place, it is not the most effective way for the central government to change the assessment criteria of local officials to promote regional development, because the most important thing for the development of a region is the spontaneous order promoted by the spontaneous behavior of the people in the region, rather than relying on a system given by the state to develop. At present, the misunderstanding of the debate on "green GDP" lies in one-sided striving for "green GDP" for all localities with "rational conceit", forgetting that the local people are the "main body" of the localities.

The wisdom of local knowledge lies in that local people will decide the growth rate and the degree of environmental protection spontaneously, and seek a balance between the benefits brought by growth and the environmental losses caused by growth. When the two are equal on the margin, the local government will decide its optimal growth rate. However, the discussion of "green GDP" did not consider the local people, so it set a "unified standard" for China's vast land. No matter what this standard is called, it always fails to pay attention to the opinions of local people and fundamentally fails to touch the core of local development. In fact, if we can't realize that local development ultimately depends on local spontaneous strength, and the way to evaluate officials is still "upward responsibility", then the real development intention of local governments can't be expressed. Even if "green GDP" meets the development goals of some regions, officials are not responsible for it in essence, but only cater to the assessment of superiors.

The construction of China ruled by law cannot rely on the "good luck" that the central command coincides with the local government, but should include the actions of governments at all levels from the legal framework. For local development, it is necessary to let the local people speak out through an open and transparent mechanism, clarify their demands, let the local people choose their own development path, and legally ensure that local officials are responsible to the local government, rather than relying on "the whole country is green" to unify local behavior. We must know that "green GDP" is naturally not "absolutely correct".