What is the core of homestead reform? It is to allow farmers to have complete property rights. That is, the complete power of possession, use, income, and disposal in civil law. The problem now is that the peasants do not have the right to dispose of it. The most important power of an asset is precisely the right to dispose of it. If you are using and benefiting from an asset yourself, but you cannot dispose of it, you cannot claim that the asset belongs to you. Your car, if it can only be used and cannot be sold, can you say that it is your own? If you want to sell your goods, you must listen to a ** agency, and the final property rights of this commodity actually belong to the planning agency. 
Therefore, the biggest problem in the countryside at present is that the land is the nominal property right of the peasant, and his property right is in a state of serious bondage, which immediately reduces the capital value of the property. This is precisely the result of scholars like him saying that "important public interests are involved, and a certain degree of restriction on property rights is required". A large group of scholars like him said that once the peasants can dispose of their homesteads or contracted land at will, they will become landless peasants, and big capital will engage in land annexation, and then the peasants will have no way to live and will become the objects of enslavement by big capital. People who say such things are, first of all, shameless. Why is it that your urban assets can be bought and sold at will, while the rural assets of farmers cannot be bought and sold at will, and you must obey the unified command? Yu Jianrong's real estate, if there is a property right restriction, does he agree? Why did he agree to someone else? It's nothing more than that the price is not borne by yourself, and you don't have back pain when you stand and talk. 
The second is ignorance and self-confidence. I always think that the peasants are fools, they can't arrange their own lives, they don't have their own value ranking, and everything has to be listened to by a "philosopher king" like him. Farmers don't wear glasses, but if you think they don't know what's good for them and need your guidance, you're a fool.
Therefore, the focus of rural development is not the two focus of the two focus of the trouble, that is, the reform of the property rights system.
Land and labor are the most basic factors of production, and if the basic factors of production are restricted, it will inevitably reduce economic vitality. To cut down control is to cut down all kinds of restrictions imposed on land, the most basic and important factor of production. He said that there have been achievements in the construction of beautiful villages. It's too politically correct, and it's really accomplished. But we just want to ask, is this an entrepreneurial act in the market, or is it an administrative act? If it is the former, it means that it is in accordance with the laws of the market, with economic calculations and profit and loss constraints; If the latter is the case, then there is no economic calculation and profit and loss constraints, which means that the allocation of scarce resources is distorted, which will inevitably reduce factor output and reduce the well-being of all.
Bringing urban wealth to the countryside? "Who let it? If investing in rural areas is profitable, it means that scarce resources are being used to meet the urgent needs of consumers; If not, then no one is investing. Entrepreneurs will naturally make judgments, and if you don't have to worry about being a national teacher, entrepreneurs are 1,500 times smarter than you.
If you really love the countryside and like to transfer capital to the countryside, please sell your urban assets and invest in the countryside. If you don't do this, and instead call for relevant policies, you are a chicken thief who makes others pay for it in order to fulfill your own desires. 
How the cities develop and whether the rural areas decay or not are the result of people's actions and marginal choices. The market naturally regulates this process. Expecting a prosperous countryside all day long, ask the peasants themselves what they think, why did they leave the countryside and let their villages decay? Because they understand that life in the city is better for them than in the countryside, they have given the clearest and most honest answer with their actions.
It's nothing more than that I want to see the countryside of my dreams and keep my so-called nostalgia, so I want to let others spend money to invest in the form of taxes, and then fix the farmers on the rural land for their own appreciation. His second rule, "ensuring food security," is extremely correct. Who can be more inclined to the flames and the world than him? 
Is there a collectivist food security? No. It's just food security for everyone. Do you want food security? Then you go to farm the land yourself, why let the farmers grow grain for you to eat? Food security is very good, and there is no so-called food security problem as long as the market mechanism is working. If there is a shortage of food, the most obvious signal is that the ** is rising, and at this time it is profitable to bring in or grow food. Once the grain reaches a certain range, you can grow food in Shenzhen office buildings.
Therefore, what ensures food security is not how much arable land there is, nor how many people farm, but the market economy. All food crises in history have been the result of violations of property rights and obstacles to free exchange. A market economy, no famine. The land does not have complete property rights, which affects the production of food in the first place. Because once the property is incomplete, it must reduce its long-term capital investment, just like if you knew that the house would be taken away tomorrow, would you still repair it? No, it won't. However, he is calling for restrictions on property rights because of the "public interest" involved. So in order for the "public interest" of his own food, is it necessary to lock the peasants to the land? That's what he thinks. He was essentially a rotten conservative, i.e. to maintain a society's eternal status hierarchy and economic structure, he was a Brahmin and the peasant had to be a Dalit forever. 
He also envied high technology. Speaking of high-precision technology, technology accumulation is required.
He was wrong again. High-tech, what is needed is capital accumulation. Do you think technology comes out of a crack in a stone?
Technology is surplus relative to capital, and it is the level of capital accumulation that determines what kind of technology emerges and is put into the production process. If the output is only enough for consumption and there is no savings, there is no possibility of technological progress, and it is impossible to invest in roundabout production at all.
The level of capital accumulation depends on time preference. It is time preference that determines the level and proportion of savings and consumption. In a society, only the more secure property rights are, the more it can reduce the time preference of the whole society, at this time, people will take a long-term view, continue to save, accumulate more capital, invest in a longer period of roundabout production, and create greater output. 
Then it comes back to the issue of his call for a certain degree of restriction on property rights. Any restriction on property rights will systematically increase time preference and reduce capital accumulation. With less capital accumulation, people will only dare to guarantee current consumption, and still invest in technological progress?
Is it because of a lack of technology that Africa's lagging countries are? Not. The technology is all readily available, and there is no secrecy to speak of. What they lack is capital. The reason for the lack of capital is that their ideas do not support the market economy and do not have complete property rights protection, so it is difficult for people to accumulate capital, and of course there is no technological progress. is the most basic economic common sense, but he can't answer the questions correctly. However, there are countless fans who follow him blindly. The purpose of criticizing him is not to compete with him, but to prevent his erroneous ideas from harming more people. A person who doesn't understand physics understands that you need to shut up in the field of physics. An illiterate economist, who gives the courage to be blind in the economic field all day long?