However, before she came to us, we called a thousand times and urged her for a thousand times, but she still hid half of her face behind her guitar from us. Recently, after the professor called for loneliness, people in the economic circles finally came out to answer, not only "still hiding half her face from us behind her guitar", but also simply avoided talking about "half-covered and half-covered", and Professor Zhang from Peking University was one of the most prominent ones! Zhang is considered to be one of the most prestigious economists in economics and one of the influential scholars in the introduction of major government measures. In 2002, he was rated as one of the top ten economic figures of CCTV. Looking back at history, Zhang is a doctor of returnees from Oxford University. He worked in the China Institute of Economic System Reform of the State Commission for Economic Restructuring, and first proposed and systematically demonstrated the dual-track reform in China. He is currently the vice president of Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, and an independent director of three companies. Some people say that now is the "mood for love" of the independent director. As an independent director of AsiaInfo, Zhang was described by the industry as an important pawn in "building the strongest board of directors". It is said to be an "important chess piece" because Zhang once published an article entitled "Anti-monopoly in China from the perspective of telecom industry" in Reform magazine, listing various monopolistic behaviors of China Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, and putting forward several specific policy suggestions. Subsequently, the reform of China Telecom was basically carried out according to the ideas in this paper, and the success of AsiaInfo today is largely due to Zhang's drum and shout. A few days ago, what did Zhang say to "drums and shouts"? After listening to it, I really beg to differ.

First: if the skin doesn't exist, the hair will attach. Is there a pure person? Zhang said that the process of retreating from the country and advancing with the people and privatization is a road that has been continuously explored in the reform for more than 20 years. Why do you want to talk about retreating from the country and entering the people now? Because the standard to test an enterprise's ownership is whether it has the ability to survive in the competition, this is a basic method. Here, Zhang believes that "retreating from the state and advancing with the people" is a panacea for the reform of state-owned enterprises, and the "road" for the reform of state-owned enterprises is to retreat from the state and advance with the people, because "after the 1990s, state-owned enterprises in many places have changed from the pillar of local finance to the burden of local governments. It doesn't make money, it loses money, and you have to raise it. " Although he is a returnee, Zhang is well versed in dialectical materialism. He said, "Many reform measures are not the result of your government officials and economists' slapping their heads, but the ways created by various places under pressure in the process of development, which are the result of competition between different regions and different ownership systems." He also said categorically: "after decentralization, business leaders only consider things for one or two years, regardless of the long-term development of enterprises." Since then, two important ideas have been put forward, one is the asset management responsibility system, and the other is the state-owned joint-stock system. I criticized these two ideas at the time. " Here, Zhang introduced people to the mindset, that is, "the country retreats and the people advance", which laid the groundwork for the next "pass the parcel" and let everyone be led by the nose.

So Amon wants to ask: First, is it the only way to reform state-owned enterprises? State-owned enterprises have developed for decades. Is it all wrong? Even if it is negative, it can only be "sublation" but not all, otherwise it will violate Professor Zhang's dialectical materialist view of history. Second, as an expert in business economics, Professor Zhang criticized other "ideas" and kept advocating "privatization" in the face of "business leaders only consider things for one or two years". Is it too willful, too simple, too helpless? Professor Zhang Can doesn't regard "betting" as learning! 3. Where does the enterprise ownership standard come from? Is the "viability" of stripping off non-performing assets, throwing away heavy bags and using the outstanding assets and labor left behind the credit for "privatization"? Is it a "test standard"? Unemployed and laid-off workers are not included in the "standard"? So, will Professor Zhang become a "pure economist"? Where is the sense of political consciousness and social responsibility? Second: "Driving backwards" or putting the cart before the horse? Zhang said that we should be kind to those who have contributed to society. That's true, but why should we be kind? Professor Zhang's statement makes people laugh and cry. One of "No": He said, "I admire the managers of these well-run state-owned enterprises. Why? Because he has a responsibility. If you are a manager in a private enterprise, you may be finished, but many state-owned enterprises may not be finished. Then why should you be a state-owned enterprise? So these people are very respectable. " The implication is that Professor Zhang seems to be saying: Maybe state-owned enterprises are justified! Here, Professor Zhang regards the bounden duty and duty of managers as "blackmail". In that case, don't. The problem is that everyone wants to do it! Second place: during the sale of state-owned enterprises, Professor Zhang concocted four great inventions, namely, looking forward, looking backward, looking left and right, and looking up, among which Professor Zhang preferred to look backward. According to Professor Zhang, "looking back" means "being kind to those outstanding people who have made contributions to society". Who is this man? Although it is not specified, everyone knows that Professor Zhang only likes to reverse cars.

"No" 3: He said, "If there is a loss of state-owned assets in the reform of state-owned enterprises, it just shows that there is a problem of" absence of owners "in state-owned enterprises. Without a responsible boss, there will be no qualified employees; Without a qualified host, it is difficult to have a competent nanny. Comparing the manager to a nanny is an analogy I made at the beginning. Now the question I want to ask is, if the nanny destroyed this home, where is the owner? Why doesn't the host hire a good nanny? " It seems that "Nanny Spoiled the Family" is a rebellion! Not only that, the reason for abuse is your country's responsibility! Your country is "qualified" and my nanny is competent. As we all know, nannies are nannies because they have a "contractual" relationship with the state. Nanny is right to do a good job, otherwise she can resign! Even officials can go to sea! Since I met an "unqualified teacher", why is this nanny hanging like this? It's a pity that someone is still helping this nanny "speak ill of Mulberry". Who needs kindness most? Professor Zhang, who likes to "look back", is probably the most knowledgeable in his heart! Third, the pig plays with nails and rings-turn it upside down. Say it, and more than one? Zhang said that it is undeniable that some state-owned enterprises are not standardized in restructuring operations, and even the buyers and sellers collude, resulting in the loss of state-owned assets, which is intolerable. Economists have also made many attacks and warnings about some phenomena. But on the whole, I think the more serious problem is the embezzlement of private assets by state government departments. Then, he gave an example that happened in the 1990s and could not be verified. I'm sorry I'm ignorant, but such examples are rarely heard. The saying that "collusion between buyers and sellers causes the loss of state-owned assets" is endless. Professor Zhang's purpose is clear: we can't stop reform because of possible asset loss! Even if you add fuel to the fire, you must "reform"! Professor Zhang said: "The efficiency of enterprises can only be tested by market competition. If we can't survive under the original state-owned conditions, the market share will shrink, and if we sell it to private enterprises, the market share will expand, the turnover will increase, and the national tax revenue will increase. How can you say that state-owned enterprises are inefficient after privatization? How can we say that this reform is wrong? " Is it a good idea to sell it here? If so, the stock market should have been fully circulated long ago, and the stock market has not been depressed for a long time. Three strikes back: Professor Zhang's metaphor is far-fetched. He said, "It's like, I believe that there are 10% bad people in this society, so it's irresponsible for me to say that you are a bad person among 10 people." The problem is that this metaphor was drawn by Professor Zhang himself, and 10% = 10 only means that he has a hard time with himself.

Fourth: Anyway. Zhang said, "There must be a loss of state-owned assets, and private assets will also suffer losses. The key is that you should see the benefits brought by the restructuring of state-owned enterprises in recent years to the increase of social wealth and social value. These overall benefits far outweigh their losses. These losses are often the cost you have to pay for the increase in total wealth. " Here, Professor Zhang made a big assumption that the increase of total wealth was brought about by the so-called "restructuring", and then inferred that if we want to increase total wealth, we must pay the cost of "loss of state-owned assets". As for state-owned assets, how to ignore them! So, isn't "loss" a matter of course? Therefore, Professor Zhang came to the conclusion that it is meaningless to dwell on the distribution problem without the change of the total wealth of society. So, corrupt officials cannot be sinners? In order to promote "drums and calls", Professor Zhang creatively concocted the so-called "time value" of the reform of state-owned enterprises, and put on "worrying about the sky" for "selling as soon as possible". He said, "It seems that there is no asset loss, but it is actually slowly losing. Isn't there a metaphor of "popsicle" before? The popsicle melted and evaporated when it was put there. You said that there is still a pool of water after the popsicle melts, but I have to ask, if it is your own "popsicle", who wants it to melt into water? " The meaning in the words is that if you sell it, you have to sell it, or you have to sell it or you have to die! He also said, "Due to ideological constraints, many legal transactions have become unreasonable and secretive, increasing the secrecy and opacity of transactions. State-owned assets, which could have been sold at a good price aboveboard, are lost irregularly. All the reforms of "entering the people and retreating from the country" are said to be private enterprises embezzling state property. This kind of public opinion pressure itself will lead to more shrinkage and loss of state-owned assets. " On the other hand, how can it make sense if the transaction is open and transparent? If it is a fair trade, how can it be bound by "ideology"? If you say "you have to pay the price", how can you not hide it? Who is this person who "describes all the restructuring of" entering the people and retiring from the country "as private enterprises embezzling state property?" Lang Xianping? Don't! Even if I did, I wouldn't say "all" and "the pressure of public opinion itself will lead to more shrinkage and loss of state-owned assets", which is so sensational, but it can also be a happy ending. If the "tension" of public opinion can keep the value of state-owned assets, increase their value and not lose them, Amon will be the first to help.