So that we are not poor!
There is a growing concern that if we fail to remain competitive, we could become poorer or even destitute. This applies regionally, i.e. "Europeanly," but also nationally, i.e. "Czechly," and personally, i.e. as individuals in the labor market and within the society in which we live. Leaving aside the pleasant realization that if we can become poorer, then we are obviously rich, or at least "not poor," the question immediately arises as to whether we just want to maintain the level we have achieved or whether we want to continue to get richer. Here it is appropriate to recall the basic economic laws that declare the impossibility of continuous, never-ending growth in wealth. It is impossible to expect or even yearn for an unlimited period of time during which we experience no economic, social, or other upheavals. To have such desires is not just excessive optimism, it is pure folly. Nevertheless, in political proclamations, especially populist ones, we increasingly encounter warnings that if we do not do this or that, we could become poorer. From a global perspective, in the competition between continents or countries, the environment is often in the spotlight in this context, along with the costs associated with measures to reduce the use of plastics, greenhouse gas emissions, combustion engines, the transition to renewable energy sources, and more. This is a difficult situation for politicians. Even if they fully understand that investing in environmental protection and the development of systems and solutions that could bring greater certainty to the habitability of our planet in the future, given their time-limited mandates, which preclude the achievement of results within their terms, they see no reason to think and act with a strategic vision. Among other things, we could become somewhat poorer for a certain period of time, which would be unpleasant and would shift preferences in a different direction. Although investments in the future necessarily entail an economic burden, and thus a certain time limit on unbridled enrichment and a transition to moderate impoverishment, we are unwilling to think this way, and almost no one offers us this unpopular philosophy. That is, no politician does.