Economic Reform Is Not Lacking In Theory And Action.

"Supply side reform" is only related to the past few years.

One of the various ways of expression is that its content and logic have not escaped the palm of "steady growth, structural adjustment and reform" advocated throughout the years.

In today's media era, research reports and reviews are seriously oversupplied. Is this unique to China? I don't know.

But the seller's analyst in the capital market, more than 90% of the reports, is no longer a news story, nor is it in the West.

It is really disappointing to see so many academics making reports that are several times the number of scholars.

Why are few people writing articles to assess the effectiveness or prediction of past reforms?

The implementation of reform - the report in this area is in short supply. In fact, such reports can also be commercial, very market or valuable.

One of the biggest benefits of Internet development is that it takes a few minutes to find many historical information about events.

For example, recently, the Ministry of finance has introduced tax reform again, which is indeed very necessary.

Because the gap between the rich and the poor in China is so large that it could be improved through taxation.

Dong Mingzhu mentioned a phenomenon at the symposium sponsored by Guangdong State Taxation Bureau: "some private enterprise owners can spend their money on private businesses, and they have almost no tax revenue, so they should strengthen personal tax collection and management of private consumption."

Some high income owners of private enterprises can easily avoid taxes and fees. It is no wonder that personal taxes have been hard to get rid of the actual image of "payroll tax".

In fact, as early as 2003, in the third Plenary Session of the 16th CPC Central Committee, the CPC set the direction of the reform of the combination of "integration and classification" of the personal income tax system.

In 2006, this reform direction was also written into the 11th Five-Year plan.

Regrettably, however, no significant progress has been made in the reform.

In other words, the reform of state-owned enterprises has gone through at least four rounds, and the reform plan put forward in the fifth Plenary Session of the 14th CPC Central Committee in 99 years is the most theoretical and guiding significance so far.

When the modern enterprise system was put forward, the separation of government and enterprises, including the reform of mixed ownership advocated now, was also put forward at that time.

But why did the four round of reform fail to solve the problem of low efficiency of state-owned enterprises? The latest statistics of the National Bureau of statistics show that in October 15 years ago, the profits of state-owned enterprises decreased by 25% compared with last year, while private enterprises increased by 6%.

According to my observation over the years,

In the three aspects of steady growth, structural adjustment and reform, the growth rate is always over expected, and the progress of reform is always low.

Why is it difficult to break the pattern of interests? In fact, the central authorities are very clear about it. There are also many demands and solutions for them, such as advocating power to be locked in cages, "government's own revolution", decentralization and decentralization, and negative lists.

It is often said that we must die and die.

For example, in the past, when we talked about the reform of state-owned enterprises, we were worried about laid-off workers' riots. Now, because the scale of state-owned enterprises is getting smaller and smaller in the days of lagging reform, the state's retreat and progress are driven by interests, and the mechanism is not in place. It is passive. This year, the proportion of GDP created by state-owned enterprises is about 20%, and employment is estimated to be 15%.

Of course, banks will not be able to bear it. If 78 trillion of debt is not changed, the larger the liabilities, the smaller the GDP ratio and the bigger the bad debts of banks.

That's a vicious circle.