What Will Happen To Private Enterprises In The Third Plenary Session Of The 18Th CPC Central Committee?

< p > of course, we have no doubt that Premier Li safeguards the sincerity of the "a href=" http://www.91se91.com/news/index_cj.asp "private economy" /a, as I have never doubted the previous prime minister's determination to control housing prices.

Of course, a policy declaration must be placed in the context of the direction of national development so as to better understand it.

China's current great political trend is becoming more and more like the so-called "political left, right and right" line: on the one hand, it strengthens the leadership of the party, severely controls public opinion and restricts political rights; on the other hand, it deepens the market oriented reform and expands the economic rights of the people.

< /p >

< p > I have no interest in "a href=" http://www.91se91.com/news/index_cj.asp > politics < /a > and I have no impulse to choose position.

In the sense of feasibility, what I want to discuss is: from a global perspective, is there any country that has long adhered to the policy of economic development and success? If so, what kind of situation will private entrepreneurs face in this economic form? < /p >

< p > look at the first question first.

The answer is "yes," though very few.

During the pition period, some Latin American countries had tried the "strong man regime + market economy". The most famous one was probably Pinochet of Chile. The dictator overthrew the socialist line of former president Allende and launched the market economy with iron fist.

Of course, Pinochet came to a bad end.

Some Asian countries and regions can also be regarded as successful examples of the left right side of the administration, such as Hongkong, which has been under colonial dictatorship for a long time.

Perhaps the most dazzling star is Singapore, which is also seen by many Chinese as a model.

< /p >

There are some obvious characteristics to me in the countries and regions where P has achieved success.

For example, almost all of them have achieved economic success in colonial or some kind of vassal state.

Their sovereign or controlling countries are old and highly democratized market economy countries.

For example, Pinochet in Chile is backed by the United States. During the Korean military regime, the United States has been stationed for a long time, while Hongkong has been under British rule for 100 years.

Although these local regimes are autocratic, their behind the scenes manipulators are still a deeply democratic regime in the market.

On the contrary, the power politics countries that have taken the so-called independent path are lower than those in Latin America and Venezuela today, and their economic development is also seriously frustrated.

< /p >

P, Singapore is probably the only one of these countries that has maintained a highly independent regime.

Although Singapore has long been colonized by Britain before its independence, and even English is one of its official languages, it allowed us troops to use their bases in the 90s of last century. But in the 60-80 era, when Singapore's economy started to take off, it was under the control of Mr. Li Guangyao, who had done a long term internal party rule and insisted on Singapore's independent interests.

Perhaps, therefore, Mr. Li Guangyao has many admirers in China, and they hope that China can also take the road of Singapore.

< /p >

< p > What are the characteristics of the Singapore model? One is the highly extroverted economy.

Singapore's a href= "http://www.91se91.com/news/index_cj.asp" > economy > /a > takes off as one of the most important ports in the Asia Pacific region and develops into an international trade and financial center.

Therefore, Singapore may not be politically dependent, but at least initially, it is highly dependent on foreign investment and foreign businessmen.

Singapore's establishment of a rule of law system that is in line with international norms has also been initially motivated to meet the needs of foreign investors and foreign businessmen.

< /p >

After P take-off, Singapore's local economic strength has been greatly enhanced.

But this enhancement is not balanced, and state-owned enterprises and state-owned affiliated enterprises have overwhelming advantages.

IMF researchers have counted Singapore's local listed companies. On average, state-owned enterprises are 10 times as large as private enterprises.

Temasek controlled enterprises in the state asset management group once accounted for about half of the total market capitalization of the new stock index index.

In the performance of profit margins, state-owned and state-owned related enterprises have overwhelmed private enterprises (private enterprises).

It can be said that the performance of Singapore's private enterprises is totally out of line with the level of Singapore's economic development and per capita income in the world.

In fact, the largest private company in Singapore listed companies may be a real estate group founded by Singaporean People in Singapore and its main business is in mainland China.

< /p >

To sum up, it is, to date, that the countries and regions in the world that are in line with the right and left route must be willing to be the vassals or colonies of the old market countries in the west, or rely heavily on state owned enterprises and foreign capital, leaving little room for development for the local private enterprises. P

That is to say, these three objectives can not be achieved at the same time.

Are there any profound reasons or rules? I am not a political scholar and I dare not jump to conclusions.

It's just for you to point out this phenomenon.

< /p >