Compared with Luo Pang's praise of "national luck" in his New Year speech, Wu Xiaobo's year-end show is unique. He pointed out an easily overlooked reason behind China's economic take-off-China's institutional innovation.
Fengyang, Anhui 1978. Xiaogang village was still a production team at that time, living a "ternary" life of "selling grain by selling it back, using money by relief, and producing by loans". Most people, old and young, go far away to beg for food.
Life without food every day prompted 18 Xiaogang householders to press a bright red handprint on a "life and death contract" with many words written on it: "We divide the land into households, and each householder signs and seals it. So capable, every household guarantees to complete the public grain handed in by each household throughout the year, and no longer asks the state for money and grain. If not, our cadres will do their best and all members will ensure that our children will be fed to 18 years old. "
This contract, which went down in history, was signed at the risk of imprisonment and beheading. To put it simply, the law lags behind the new things, and further, in the words of not being drunk by coffee, it is to break the cage of the old system and inevitably face the unbearable sins of ordinary people.
Today's express delivery industry is in full swing. Before 2009, it was an illegal delivery service. These logistics companies and the postal system have been playing the game of "cat and mouse" for more than ten years, and the slightly larger courier companies are fined as much as one million yuan every year.
As early as 1990, the demand for private express delivery was born among the people. With the improvement of people's living standards and the development of social logistics system, the state-run postal system has been completely incompetent for the function of express delivery, and a large number of private express delivery enterprises have sprung up. These include SF Express, Sitong Yida and so on, which we are familiar with now.
Compared with the scenery that has been listed one after another, they were called "black express trains" in those days. Because the old "Postal Law" stipulated that "letters and other articles with the nature of letters shall be monopolized by postal enterprises". A person in charge who entered Shentong in 2000 said with a smile, "In those days, we all slept during the day and worked at night. Finally, the landlord couldn't help asking if we were thieves. "
Zhang Xiaolong and his team deliberately avoided having anything to do with politics. As a liberal who advocates Hayek, he is taken care of in the company, and any cross-border behavior will be strictly prohibited.
However, after the development of WeChat, it will inevitably offend the existing interests of the three major telecom operators. To this end, Liu Chengmin, senior vice president of Tencent Wireless Division, who has been dealing with operators for many years, implored Zhang Xiaolong to "wait for him to communicate with operators before going online".
Zhang Xiaolong didn't want to give in. In the end, Ma Hua Teng made his own decision and resisted the pressure. "Let it go first." As a result, WeChat, which achieved great success, was able to take users to a big position, forcing telecom operators to accept reality and compromise.
Having said that, I just want to say one thing: breaking the law and doing evil cannot be equated.
September 4th was four months ago. But looking back, is an O really banned? Did the original executive order achieve the expected effect?
Actually, it's not. However, it has moved from the ground to the underground. Originally investing in three major websites, it has now become investing in WeChat groups and small secret circles, which is euphemistically called private placement.
There are policies on the top and countermeasures on the bottom. The cost of supervision is to increase transaction costs. The cost of input and the cost of identifying true information are all white extra costs and should be included in the net loss of the whole society.
With the passage of time, the disadvantages of the policy began to appear.
First of all, some scammers have gradually entered people's field of vision:
Reasonable, if the three crowdfunding websites are still there, will these scammers still have a fraud market?
Good people turn against each other.
The punchline and xdite's right and wrong, so that the original close two mentoring and comrades-in-arms parted ways because of different values, turned against each other. As a fan of the two, I really don't want to see this happen. However, according to the reasons they announced, it can be seen that the fuse of the incident lies in whether OTCBTC should adopt private placement.
As a mainlander, Mr. Xiao Lai strictly abides by the laws of the mainland, even if it is a sideline. This is his moral requirement for himself and the embodiment of his consistent ethics.
As a native of Taiwan Province Province, Teacher xdite's company is also a company in Taiwan Province Province. She is not bound by mainland laws. She can do anything that conforms to the laws of Taiwan Province Province, share the company's future earnings with users, and raise public funds. In my opinion, it is reasonable and there is nothing wrong with it.
However, because of the policy control, two originally kind people had differences, so there was the core contradiction of "how to allocate 40000 ETH".
Now that the two are in court (here, the two sides are called for an out-of-court settlement), fans have stood in line, and the future of a promising trading website has also been cast a shadow. Liars are popular, and good people are strangers. This is exactly what bad money drives out good money, starving the timid and supporting the bold.
Blockchain itself belongs to the frontier technology field that most people are not familiar with, and finance naturally has the characteristics of high information asymmetry and high risk. Therefore, I don't want to oppose all regulation here. I just want to say that although supervision is necessary, the subject, method and effect of supervision are worth discussing and should be allowed to be discussed, questioned and evaluated. Blindly shouting the slogan of supporting the top management, in addition to knitting the clothes of the new emperor together, it also embodies a giant baby thinking: "As long as the public rights are responsible for me, I don't have to be responsible for my own investment decisions."
Finally, I'd like to conclude by quoting Zhou Qiren:
Recommend Wu Xiaobo's year-end show again. Its overall production, content, effect and so on are not lost to Friends of Time. It was after reading it that I was prompted to think about the theme of this article.