广州经济评论家 巩胜利：“作为一个国家整体和私营企业来竞争，这环境可想而知。环境乱套了，这个国家的贸易怎么往前走？ 在跟全世界各个国家做生意当中，这个环境没有办法公正，也没有办法让其他国家做外贸的公平的来竞争。”
Without a Wall Street, CCP’s Dictatorship Economically Supported by Monopoly of State-Owned Companies
On September 11th, U.S. based Foreign Policy magazine
published an article titled “Why there will never be a Wall Street in China”.
The article wrote that, the Chinese stock market is
essentially a place for speculation rather than for exchanging ownership of enterprises.
Only a small fraction of shares can be traded freely while
it is always the CCP authority which has absolute power over each company.
In such a market, whether a company can collect a great
quantity of money depends on its relationship with the government rather than on its creative foresight.
Expert s remarked that, state-owned companies are
blood transfusion machines to economically support the CCP’s regime;
Therefore a free market will never be fully opened in China.
Foreign Policy’s article remarked that the Chinese
stock market is not a real “stock market”.
In China, governmental power replaces a free market
as the ultimate power in the stock market,
which invalidates its fundamental function of “price regulation”
and makes it only a place of speculation.
The price of Chinese stock depends on its liquidity in
the market and investors’ anticipations of various changes.
Those anticipations are basically influenced by new policies and
any rumor about possible interference, allowance and stimulus by the government.
To investors, their confidence in company strategy, product
innovation and quality of management is only secondary.
They always first take into account what the CCP
authority plans to do.
The article wrote that, in fact Beijing had excluded all
non-state-owned companies from the Chinese stock market.
The CCP authority also requires that any state-owned
company must be under absolute control of the government,
which should hold at least 51% of the shares.
Therefore, the stock market is almost exclusively occupied
by the government and its subordinate companies.
This means that only a small fraction of shares are subject
to free trade.
The negative effect of such a system far exceeds
any function of the stock market itself.
Guangzhou Economic commentator Gong Shengli
pointed out that,
such a system mandates that the government acts as
the main body of the trade market.
(Gong Shengli):”It is easy to imagine how bad the
environment is when the state as a whole body competes with private enterprises.
With such an unhealthy economic environment,
how can the trade market of this country prosper?
It is impossible to fairly trade in the global market,
and it is also impossible for foreign companies to compete fairly in such a market.”
Gong Shengli remarked that, state-owned companies
have monopolized capital and resources, and national capital is only available to state-owned companies;
thus the capital chains for private and collectively owned
companies have been cut which makes it difficult for them to survive.
As an example, China Mobile has occupied more than 80%
of it’s resources for the mobile telecommunication industry.
Foreign Policy’s article suggested that, the government
has to retreat from the market to initialize a real reform;
China has to open its market to Chinese private companies
and foreign investors,
enable privatization of state-owned companies and develop
a more mature control model for stock circulation.
However, Gong Shengli believes that the CCP authority
is not willing to do so as such reform can be a strike against its regime.
(Gong Shengli): ”State-owned companies have produced
considerable profits for the regime.
Those profits are essentially seized from ordinary
Chinese people, who have to pay more for living costs such as water supply, electricity and gas.
Furthermore, the cost of serving the CCP’s
political agencies such as party committees,
propaganda departments and United Front agencies can be
even higher than the cost of managing the government itself.”
Gong Shengli remarked that, the way the CCP spends
tax revenues on itself is not permitted in any lawful state.
Since the cost of running the CCP is very high,
it will not give up it’s monopoly of state owned companies.
Foreign Policy’s article also mentioned that, enabling real
privatization is equivalent to giving away numerous economic profits to foreigners;
the government will also lose its control over
the domestic economy.
For rulers who try to maintain their governance at any cost,
this will never happen; we will be surprised if this ever becomes reality.