Wu Jinglian; Reform Is Going To Break The Party State Corporation.

The reform is to break Lenin's "National Syndicate". In fact, the so-called "National Syndicate" is not a problem of state-owned enterprises, but a system problem.

Our system is the Lenin Stalin system.

Lenin called it the "National Syndicate", and the reformist economists in Eastern Europe used the more modern saying that it was called the "big party company".

Reform will break the reform of the party and the big company.

I have always opposed the government's Offside intervention in the market. In recent years, the government has been heavily subsidized technological innovation, but science and technology are two different things. Scientific research is externalities, and it is impossible to say that you can get the reward of how much money you can get by finding a mathematical theorem. Therefore, it should be invested by the government. But technological innovation is rewarded by the market. The government has tens of millions or billions of money to reward a technology, which is unreasonable. Why should the government take the money to reward technological innovation?

What is the ability of the government to determine which technology is promising? You can say that some technology itself may be advanced, but whether it can succeed in the market can not be known to anyone.

Now we are all talking about what technology the government wants to develop, and then we will pay a lot of money. What is the final result? Look at what has become of our PV industry.

Not only photovoltaic, but now the whole country is doing LED, the most powerful one may be my hometown, Changzhou, to become the capital of LED world.

However, because resources are scarce, the enterprise can not get the resources of the enterprise.

Now the whole of Jiangsu is the case. Shi Zhengrong has 20 billion yuan of money, so the government can not afford to support the LED industry.

A LED company in Kunshan thought of financing in the field. Guangdong said, "you can move the company to Guangdong, so we can invest money, but the local government says you can't move out. You move away and I give you hundreds of millions of dollars."

So the mode of government intervention in investment itself is very abnormal.

The government is a place where the fat water does not flow to the outsiders.

The Ministry of science and technology has launched a 1000 car plan for the ten cities of electric vehicles, and now about more than 20 cities are engaged in it.

The central government and local governments are subsidizing some of their money. The total number of cars in the ten cities is ten thousand cars.

At present, the twenty thousand or thirty thousand cars should be said to have reached the lowest economic scale, but now there is no use at all. The list is given to local enterprises everywhere.

Twenty the number of one thousand vehicles will not reach the effective scale, and the money will be wasted.

As long as the scale of the manufacturing industry, the cost will come down, but what is the use of orders for every one thousand enterprises?

The government can subsidize this kind of thing because of saving energy and reducing pollution. The general principle is that when competition is impossible, we can not subsidize it. But we are not, the government will decide which brand to give money, which is a violation of the fair competition law.

In the light of market economy, we should subsidize the buyers and buy them through the market.

Home appliances to the countryside are also problematic.

Some varieties have already been eliminated, because home appliances go to the countryside, in essence, they maintain their life cycle, but they spend taxpayers' money, so they also involve the so-called distribution reform.

The problem of distribution reform is very big. It is always said that the government should pay for it. The result is that the tax is added so heavily. What is the way to solve the problem?

Some small business owners also told me in private (they dare not say publicly) that the leaders of our industries were loved by the government, but they simply could not understand our difficulties.

When I went to Zhejiang in 2004, I found that there was a list of enterprises to be built from the provincial level to the county level, which in itself violated the basic principles of market competition. However, everyone was surprised.

What is the problem with the reform of distribution system just now? The fundamental problem is that there is a problem in our growth pattern.

From the perspective of investment, the proportion of capital is higher and higher, and the proportion of labor is getting lower and lower.

As a result, the income of capital is higher and higher, while the income of labor is getting lower and lower.

The capital is the ordinary people simply can not have, the capital owner is the first government, the second is the enterprise, the enterprise is mainly state-owned enterprises, private enterprises are some enterprises supported by the government, as a result, the income distribution is tilted to the government and tilted to the large state-owned enterprises.

The fundamental problem is that there is a problem with our growth model.

The fundamental problem is that there is a problem with our growth model.

The so-called pformation of economic growth mode is to reduce the contribution of investment in the whole growth, improve efficiency or technological progress.

Specifically, it is to increase the proportion of knowledge and skilled labour and the proportion of professionals in the process of growth.

From the point of distribution, the proportion of laborers should be further improved.

change

Instead of shouting slogans, the Central Committee of the party will make a decision. That is a lot of work to do.

In addition to the survival of the fittest in the market, we should train workers and popularize compulsory education.

From the Meiji Restoration, the Japanese began to attach importance to education, and took the two or three generation of economy to take off. We now have a large number of migrant workers who have not even accepted nine years of compulsory education.

A large number of migrant workers in Guangdong (the local government did not treat the children of migrant workers equally with the education of local children) the local government said that the children of migrant workers should go back to their hometown to study.

Now the second generation and the third generation of migrant workers have to go back to their children? As a result, social problems are constantly occurring, and what happens frequently in Guangdong.

The children of the outsiders are also unable to get jobs. The locals earn their money by the house. Their sons and grandchildren do not have to work at all, nor do they study or gamble, so a small matter can cause thousands of people to fight.

Now some enterprises take the initiative to run vocational and technical universities, so as to train high skilled workers and achieve automation as far as possible.

This is supposed to be a good thing, but some private universities are taking the name of running schools.

This is very complicated. You can hardly say which enterprise should praise.

We have several figures in Internet application, which have been declining in the world rankings for three consecutive years.

Our average bandwidth is still less than 80% of the world average, and the proportion of Internet users is decreasing. To 40% (500 million people), the growth is slow and slow, but people are still growing. What is the reason? It is because our information cost is too high. Compared with our optical fiber backbone network, our number is 1, and we can see that war preparedness and 2 are enough, but we have made 6 in the whole country, and now we are building 1 other broadcasters.

The government divided the market.

At the time of electronic government affairs, all the agencies were doing their own systems. Finally, these systems could not even be linked up, and they did not intend to link them up. For example, the information of the Ministry of public security and the mutual control between the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of commerce were monopolized as their own property.

The fundamental problem is that the government should not manage so much.

The United States is a Ministry of Commerce, the Ministry of commerce is to manage the market, no matter the enterprise, we are not, always managed to go to the enterprise.

It is not only the Ministry of Commerce, the Ministry of science and technology, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of industry and commerce.

Why top-level design? That's because of these problems.

If the whole reform can not be pushed forward, there is no way to solve these problems one by one.

Now there are many problems, so we need to study, we need to start from the problem to find out the reasons for the system, and then sort out the so-called roadmap based on priorities and supporting relationships.

It is required that the road map be drawn up this year, and the general plan, roadmap and timetable should be clearly put forward.

I do not think it can be done by the State Council or directly by the Party Central Committee.

Of course, some comrades advocated the restoration of the National Commission for reform and development, but according to past experience, the round of reform plan in 1984 was not done by the National Commission for reform and development. It was the establishment of a plan to do it. The 1991-1993 year round was directly done by the Central Committee of the CPC. In 1993, the drafting group of the general plan was directly led by the Central Committee, and the leader of the drafting group was Wen Jiabao, the then director of the China office. In addition, there were 16 investigation teams, and the investigation group was sent by the China finance office, when the director of the central finance office was Zeng Peiyan.

That was directly seized by the Central Committee of the party. I do not know if this is the case.

I once said that reform is to break Lenin's "National Syndicate". In fact, the so-called "National Syndicate" is not a problem of state-owned enterprises, but a system problem.

Our system is the Lenin Stalin system.

Lenin called it the "National Syndicate", and the reformist economists in Eastern Europe used the more modern saying that it was called the "big party company".

China's current development is Lenin's special national capitalism in 1921.

Its characteristics are: on the one hand, there is a market; on the other hand, the state holds all the commanding heights, and the commanding point in China is called "lifeline", which is what we want to change.

After several rounds

By the end of last century, we announced the establishment of a socialist market economic system.

But this system has a very heavy legacy of the old system, especially in the early part of this century. Many areas of reform have gone backward, for example, "the country moves forward and the people retire", so China is a semi market economy country, which must continue to develop, that is, the crony capitalism.

Now there are two problems that cannot be solved: first, the old growth pattern is inseparable.

It has been more than ten or twenty years to change the mode of economic growth, and the problem is getting worse.

In shallow terms, it is the shortage of resources and the destruction of the environment. In a deeper sense, the income of workers has been raised slowly.

Relying on big bills to support growth has led to the formation of the real estate bubble.

Inflationary pressures are continuing to rise. Our currency is now going to reach 200% of GDP, and more than 100% of the world's countries are few.

Two, after the intervention of power in the economic sphere, corruption is becoming more and more serious.

If these two problems are not solved, the Chinese economy is likely to have a big problem.

Therefore, over the past year, more and more people believe that China's failure to reform is bound to cause great problems.

But I think the consensus of reform has been formed. What I call the consensus is that social contradictions have reached the critical point and the reform must be restarted.

In the past, some of my remarks were opposed to more people online than those in favour. 90% of the people agreed that this is what I said.

From the third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee, the third Plenary Session of the 12th CPC Central Committee, the third Plenary Session of the 14th CPC Central Committee and the fourth Plenary Session of the 15th CPC Central Committee, the direction of reform has always been marketization. If we add the "Sixteen big", then there is political, that is, rule by law and democratization.

Therefore, marketization of economic reform, rule of law and democratization of political reform, this is a mainstream in the past.

It is only in this century that other people began to emerge. They used to argue against each other in a small way, and delivered tens of thousands of words. This century has been more powerful. They have formally put forward a program, together with representatives, such as Bo Xilai, and the emergence of the "Chinese model" school.

In actual action, before and after 2006, the SASAC's documents shifted to another direction.

The direction of reform is not firm, but consensus is the most recent year.

Recently, there are several things, one is the high speed rail, and the high-speed rail is known as the miracle created by the "China mode". What miracle is it? It is very clear.

Another outstanding manifestation of the "China model" is Chongqing.