First, the essence of supply-side structural reform is reform. Supply-side structural reform, first of all, is reform, and the object is system and mechanism, which is the essence of supply-side structural reform. Without this "reform" essence, talking about supply-side structural reform will deviate from its original meaning. In fact, only from the perspective of Chinese grammar, both "supply-side structural reform" and "supply-side reform" are structural phrases and biased. "Supply side" is the attributive, "reform" is the first word, obviously "reform" is the central meaning. As the general secretary pointed out, the essential attribute of supply-side structural reform is to deepen reform. The structural reform of the supply side is to change some old systems on the supply side that hinder the supply structure from adapting to changes in demand. Therefore, although "three to one, one reduction and one supplement" is a major task of "supply-side structural reform", it is not the reform itself. The key is to see who will do it and how. The object of reform is the system, not the problem or the task itself.

Second, supply-side structural reform is structural reform. The general secretary stressed that the supply-side reform we proposed is completely "supply-side structural reform" or "supply-side reform" for short, but we must not forget the word "structural". In fact, I understand that supply-side structural reform is structural reform. Without the "structural" nature, it is meaningless to talk about supply-side reform. The word "structural reform" actually comes from the west, which emphasizes the reform of institutional problems that cause structural contradictions, including the relationship between government and society, government and market, and government and enterprises, such as the reform of labor market and welfare system in Europe. In China, structural contradictions are more prominent, especially the problem of overcapacity. This problem has special institutional reasons, mainly the distortion of the relationship between the government and enterprises. In fact, the supply side is not a problem. There is a problem because having a "tangible hand" is counterproductive. The supply-side structural reform is to straighten out these relationships and let the market really play a decisive role in resource allocation. Buried "zombie enterprises" will also be "buried underground".

Third, the supply-side structural reform is not equal to the proposition of the supply school. The general secretary stressed that the supply-side structural reform we are talking about is not the same as the supply school of western economics, and we cannot regard the supply-side structural reform as a replica of the western supply school. As we all know, the supply school is an economic school that rose in the United States in the 1970s. The supply school believes that the growth of production depends on the supply and effective utilization of production factors such as labor and capital. The supply school strongly advocates a substantial tax cut, believing that tax cuts can stimulate people to work more. Supply-side structural reform, although it also includes the requirement of reducing taxes and fees to reduce the burden on enterprises, is not only fundamentally different from that advocated by the supply school, but also far beyond that advocated by the supply school.

Fourth, supply-side structural reform does not mean structural adjustment. There is a misunderstanding that supply-side structural reform is structural adjustment. In fact, although supply-side structural reform is related to structural problems, neither connotation nor specific measures are equivalent to structural adjustment. In the past, economic, legal and administrative means were usually used in structural adjustment, and more administrative means were used. Obviously, this supply-side structural reform does not rule out the necessary administrative and legal means, such as reducing loss subsidies, stopping zombie enterprise loans, and implementing enterprise bankruptcy according to law, but unlike the past, structural adjustment will mainly solve problems through reform, starting with institutional mechanisms. The supply-side structural reform is an active choice made after rethinking the traditional structural adjustment method.

Fifth, supply-side structural reform is not a new planned economy. Now there is a saying in society that promoting structural reform on the supply side is to engage in a new "planned economy". This is obviously a misunderstanding. The key to supply-side structural reform is to further stimulate the vitality of market players and give full play to the decisive role of the market in resource allocation. This is the perfection of the socialist market economic system, and it is by no means a return to the old road of planned economy. In the past, it was precisely because the market mechanism did not play a sufficient role and the government intervened too much that the market could not be cleared in time and caused various structural contradictions. Although there may be various schemes for supply-side structural reform, I believe that such schemes, even in the name of "planning", are not planned economy in the original sense. What is needed now is structural reform. If we only adjust the structure without changing the system, we will inevitably fall into the strange circle of "adjusting again in a few years" This is exactly the problem to be solved in the supply-side structural reform. ]