The problem of China's economy, from a longer cycle, must be an innovation breakthrough.
Now internet celebrities are debating whether Chinese technology has left the United States behindThis is not a matter of debate at all, but a test of how many people believe in the truth, and how many only ask about their positionsHowever, what is meaningful is that what does China's economic innovation rely on to break through?So, there was an argument.
Lin Yifu said that it depends on industrial policy;
Zhang Weiying said that it depends on the entrepreneurial spirit;
I say a market economy with full competition.
In the past few decades, especially after the reform and opening up, China's scientific and technological level has been directly upgraded, and on the basis of the Western market economy, it has enjoyed the fruits of scientific and technological innovation and formed a strong Chinese manufacturing.
In the post-epidemic era, the advantage of Made in China is both an advantage and a pressure.
Because we are in the middle of the global industrial chain, the upstream is stuck in the neck, the downstream is costly, and the expansion of external demand has been blocked, and the contradiction of insufficient domestic demand has been fully exposed.
Can relying on domestic demand solve the problem of overcapacity?
No, the indices of the economy have proven this fact time and time again.
After the end of the epidemic, the consumption index is very stable, indicating that China is the most populous country, not the largest consumer country, the growth of national income is a slow work, and rebuilding the economic balance will also be a long cycle.
So, the question that arises, what does China's innovation break through?
Zhang Weiying said that it is necessary to rely on entrepreneurship, and Lin Yifu said that it is necessary to rely on industrial policy support, which does not seem to be an either/or, either-or option, but a question of who is the dominant factor in the relationship between the market and policy. The more fundamental thing can only be the market, and the policy acts to add fuel to the fire, and if it is reversed, it is likely to be a huge waste, and it will be half the result.
In fact, it is difficult for policies to effectively achieve the effect of support.
Once on the train, I met a senior leader of a famous school, he was excited to tell a lot of truth, colleges and universities to the country to ask for a subject, 100,000 yuan can be engaged in the subject, directly reported to more than 10,000, anyway, the elite of the office does not understand, the support of chip research, the support of new energy have cases;The ** of Chinese universities is flying all over the sky, many people think that this can prove that China has led the world in scientific research, two days ago, Musk, who was not blocked, came out to spoil the fun again, he said that it was all rubbish. There is a policy-supported park in my city, and a buddy has settled in, applied for a sum of money from the treasury, and the office is rent-free, in fact, because there are people in the temple, which is purely a set of funds.
If you don't want to let a huge amount of money go down the drain, trust the market.
China's annual investment in scientific research is very huge, from research institutes, universities to state-owned enterprises, as a result, the harvest is far less than that of private enterprises, and the contribution of private enterprises to scientific and technological innovation is as high as above, which has already explained the problem, which is not a matter of debate in the first place;It's more about the "stance" mentioned earlier, it's a matter of concept;The reason is simple, scientific and technological innovation is never planned.
Plans come from smart office elites, who are of course excellent, but they can't plan innovations, they can only plan high imitations. The most innovative thinking should be the kindergarten children, not the office elite. Real innovation is driven by the market.
Innovation is not a slogan, not a doctrine, but an intrinsic driver of the market.
In a fully competitive market environment, if capital wants to survive and fight its way out, the only way to break through is through innovation. Zhang Weiying talked about a monopoly of private capital, and believes that it must not be private capital that can really monopolize, because innovation will sweep everything, can New Oriental monopolize English education?No matter how powerful it is, it can't be done, ChatGPT appears, many English teachers will face unemployment, how to monopolize it?Innovation will continue to lead to the death of monopolies, whether private capital or state assets.
I prefer to believe that the monopoly of capital is a false proposition, how many enterprises that were dominating 20 years ago are still on the list today?
This is precisely the powerful driving force of the market economy, competition, full competition.
It is not the entrepreneurial spirit that Zhang Weiying said that determines the development of the economy, on the contrary, it is the full competition of the market economy that determines that the capitalists who aim at profit-seeking will become entrepreneurs of the Ren Zhengfei style.
Similarly, there is no era of Jack Ma, only Jack Ma of the era, so, what is the era of Jack Ma?
It is not destined to be an era in which everything is included in the plan, it can only be a fully competitive market economy, because we can't plan the first person who eats crabs as Lin Yifu said, but there will be a lot of people who eat policy subsidies.
The first person to eat crabs, for the market economy, is probably not to enjoy the pleasure of the tip of the tongue, but to survive in the wild.