A Discussion with Professor Wu Jinglian — Can There Be Double Standards in Academic Debate?

I. A Passage Professor Wu Says “I Found Very Enlightening and Would Like to Share with You All”

一、吴教授说“很有启发，愿意在此贡献给诸位”的一段话

Recently, the *Shanghai Securities News* published an interview with Professor Wu, in which a passage drew attention:

最近，《上海证券报》刊登了对吴教授的专访，其中有一段话引人注目：

Reporter: Do you and Professor Lang Xianping have major differences in your views on state-owned enterprise reform?

记者:您和朗咸平教授在看待国企改革上面有很大分歧吗?

Wu Jinglian: I said I agree with Lang Xianping’s statement “oppose the theft of state property,” and “do not reject a person because of his words,” but I oppose his statement that “state-owned enterprise reform is wrong.” Then someone published an article saying Lang Xianping never said SOE reform was wrong. A few days later, Lang Xianping himself published an article titled “SOE Reform Provokes Widespread Resentment.” Do you listen to Lang Xianping, or to those who speak on behalf of Lang Xianping? I think we should establish rules for academic discussion. Without such rules, I am not prepared to participate in the discussion.

吴敬琏:我说我同意郎咸平所说的“反对盗窃国有财产”，“不以人废言”，但我反对他说“国有企业改革是错误的”，结果有人就发表文章，说郎咸平没有说过国企改革是错的。后来过了几天，郎咸平就自己发表了“国企改革天怒人怨”的文章。你是听郎咸平的呢，还是听代表郎咸平的人的话?我觉得，应该建立一个学术讨论的规则，如果没有这个规则的话，我是不准备参加讨论的。

Reporter: Some people say you “dislike the poor and love the rich,” that you support the wealthy and the capitalist class. What do you think of this view?

记者:有些人说您“嫌贫爱富”，是支持富人和资本阶层的，您怎么看这个说法?

Wu Jinglian: I don’t know where this view comes from. For example, someone once claimed I said “the poor oppose reform.” In fact, that was a transcription error by someone else; my original text was not like that. The next day, the *China Youth Daily* published a correction notice, and later *Caijing* magazine published the full text of my remarks. (From “Wu Jinglian: I Have Never Disliked the Poor and Loved the Rich,” *Shanghai Securities News*, March 8, 2006)

吴敬琏:我不知道这种说法是从何而来，就像有人曾经指出我说过“穷人反对改革”的话，实际上那是别人抄录的时候写错了，我的原文并不是这样，第二天《中国青年报》上已经刊登了更正启事，后来《财经》杂志刊登了我的全文。(《吴敬琏：我从来没有嫌贫爱富》《上海证券报》2006年3月8日)

Reading these words of Professor Wu raises a question: Did Professor Wu actually say “the poor oppose reform,” or was it a transcription error by someone else? Here, we cite Professor Wu’s *Caijing* four-person discussion from November 2005, the *China Youth Daily* article from December 2005, and the *Caijing* article from January 17, 2006, to take a look:

看了吴教授的这些话，让人想到一个问题，究竟吴教授说过“穷人反对改革”的话没有，是不是别人抄录的时候写错了？这里，我们把2005年11月吴教授的《财经》四人谈，12月《中国青年报》的文章，2006年1月17日《财经》的文章引出来，看一看：

Professor Wu Jinglian’s first discussion:

吴敬琏教授的第一次谈话：

“Conflating two kinds of inequality and directing the main矛头 at the biggest problem of inequality of outcomes is to confuse ‘anti-corruption’ with ‘anti-wealth.’ The矛头 is not directed at corrupt officials and ‘red-hat businessmen,’ but at the upper strata of the middle-income class, such as doctors, professors, executives of state-owned enterprises, and small and medium-sized business owners. This is also politically wrong. ‘Corruption’ and ‘wealth’ are easily conflated, but the responsibility of leaders and the media is precisely to help the masses distinguish between the two, to truly understand who are our friends and who are our enemies. What is worrying is that now it seems the focus is on inequality of outcomes, so there are calls to cap the maximum salaries of SOE managers, impose high taxes on ordinary rich people, and so on; and there is constant talk of ‘shooting at the rich.’ Such statements and actions not only miss the point but will also lead to serious social consequences. The gap between rich and poor is caused by corruption, by using power to obtain income, that is, power rent-seeking.” (From “A Four-Person Discussion with Wu Jinglian, Shangquan Gao, Jiang Ping, and Xu Xiaonian,” *Caijing*, November 25, 2005)

混同两种不平等，把矛头主要指向结果不平等的最大问题，是把“反腐”和“反富”混为一谈。矛头不是指向贪官和“红顶商人”，而是指向中等收入阶层的上层分子，如医生、教授、国企高管、中小企业主等等，这在政治上也是错误的。“腐”和“富”之间容易混同，但是领导和传媒的责任正在于帮助大众分清二者，真正懂得谁是我们的朋友，谁是我们的敌人。令人担忧的是，现在好象集中注意的是结果的不平等，于是就要限制国企经理的最高薪酬，对一般的富人征高额税等等；还动不动就要“向富人开枪”。这种说法和做法不但没有抓住要点，还会导致严重的社会后果。贫富悬殊，是腐败、是用权力换取收入，即权力寻租造成的。 (《吴敬琏、高尚全、江平、许小年四人谈》《财经》2005年11月25日)

Professor Wu Jinglian’s second discussion:

吴敬琏教授的第二次谈话：

“Who might oppose reform? One is vested interest groups, and the other is impoverished groups. They may form an alliance against the market system. Under the slogan of remedying market deficiencies, the masses are completely unaware that their own fate will be changed as a result.” The famous economist Wu Jinglian, at the *Caijing* magazine 2006 annual conference today, unexpectedly ended his keynote speech with this passage.

“什么人可能反对改革？一个是既得利益集团，一个是贫困群体。他们可能在反市场体制上结成联盟。打着弥补市场缺陷的口号，大众全然没有意识到自己的命运会就此改变。”著名经济学家吴敬琏今天在《财经》杂志2006年年会上，出人意料地用这一段话来结束自己的主题演讲。

Why did this economist, known for his rationality, become emotional? Wu Jinglian’s words imply deep concern. In a recent media interview, he said that income inequality has two possible sources: inequality of opportunity and inequality of outcome. The current gap between rich and poor in Chinese society mainly comes from inequality of opportunity. He explained that just as corrupt officials, by stealing public property and buying and selling official positions, easily become multimillionaires or billionaires. But now it seems the focus is on inequality of outcomes, so there are calls to cap the maximum salaries of SOE managers, impose high taxes on ordinary rich people, and so on; and there is constant talk of ‘shooting at the rich.’ Such statements and actions not only miss the point but will also lead to serious social consequences. The gap between rich and poor is caused by corruption, by using power to obtain income, that is, power rent-seeking.” (From “Wu Jinglian Gets Emotional: Who Might Form an Alliance Against the Market System,” *China Youth Daily*, December 13, 2005)

一向以理性著称的经济学家因何动了感情？吴敬琏言语间隐含着深深的担忧。日前他在接受媒体采访时说，收入不平等有两个可能的来源：一个是机会的不平等，一个是结果的不平等。目前中国社会贫富悬殊，主要来自机会的不平等。他解释，就像贪官污吏通过盗窃公共财产，通过买官卖官，很容易就成了千万、亿万富翁。但现在好像集中注意的是结果的不平等，于是就要限制国企经理的最高薪酬，对一般的富人征高额税等等；还动不动就要“向富人开枪”。这种说法和做法不但没有抓住要点，还会导致严重的社会后果。贫富悬殊，是腐败、是用权力换取收入，即权力寻租造成的。” 《吴敬琏动了感情:谁可能在反市场体制上结成联盟》2005-12-13《中国青年报》

Professor Wu Jinglian’s third discussion:

吴敬琏教授的第三次谈话：

“Some time ago I read a book titled *Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists*. There is a passage in the book that goes like this:

前一段时间我读了一本书，书名叫《从资本家手中拯救资本主义》。书中有这样一段话

‘A free market economy is the most efficient way humans have created to organize production and arrange distribution. However, its development requires a series of good institutional arrangements as its infrastructure, and the establishment and maintenance of this infrastructure requires a good political environment. This political environment faces threats from two sides. The first threat comes from vested interest groups, who have already occupied a strong position in the market and still seek to maintain their position. The second threat comes from the vast impoverished population. These two groups, seemingly vastly different in status, can exert enormous influence once they form an alliance against the market system, leading the government to intervene in the market. Such actions, while ostensibly under the banner of remedying market deficiencies, in fact hinder the effective operation of the market. And the masses not only do not protest but even applaud, completely unaware that their own future will be harmed as a result.’

“自由市场经济是人类创造的最有效的组织生产和安排分配的方式。然而，它的发展需要一系列良好的制度安排作为其基础设施，而这些基础设施的建立和维护需要一个良好的政治环境。这种政治环境面临着两个方面的威胁，第一个威胁是来自既得利益集团，他们已经在市场中占据了强势地位，还企图继续维持其地位。第二个威胁来自庞大的贫困人群。这两方面的人群，看起来彼此地位极其悬殊，可是它们一旦在反对市场体制的问题上结成联盟，就会发挥巨大的影响力，政府对市场采取干预行动。这种行动表面上打着改进市场缺陷的招牌，实际上却妨碍市场的有效运作。而大众不但不会抗议，甚至还要喝彩，全然没有意识到自己的未来会因此受到损害。”

I myself found this passage very enlightening and would like to share it with you all.

我自己读了这段话觉得很有启发，愿意在此贡献给诸位。

The author is a researcher at the Development Research Center of the State Council. This article is from the author’s speech at the “*Caijing* Annual Conference: 2006 Forecast and Strategy.” (From “Wu Jinglian: The Key to Sustainable Development Lies in Transforming Government Functions,” *Caijing* magazine, January 17, 2006)

作者为国务院发展研究中心研究员。本文为作者在“《财经》年会：2006预测与战略”上的讲话 (《吴敬琏：实现可持续发展关键在政府职能的转变》2006年1月17日《财经》杂志)

From the above three passages, the passage about not “shooting at the rich” first appeared in *Caijing*’s “four-person discussion,” and did not include “Who might oppose reform? One is vested interest groups, and the other is impoverished groups.” Then it appeared in the *China Youth Daily*. The so-called anti-market sentiment “coming from impoverished groups” appears in both the *China Youth Daily* and *Caijing*, but there is indeed a difference. How big is this difference? The difference is that Professor Wu was quoting a passage from *Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists*, which is what Professor Wu meant by “later *Caijing* magazine published the full text of my remarks.” The *China Youth Daily* treated the quoted passage as Professor Wu’s own words, which is what Professor Wu meant by “a transcription error by someone else.”

从上述三段话来看，不要“向富人开枪”的一段话，最早出现在《财经》的“四人谈”，并没有“什么人可能反对改革？一个是既得利益集团，一个是贫困群体”。然后出现在《中国青年报》。所谓反市场化“来自贫困人群”，出自《中国青年报》和《财经》，确实有差别。那么这个差别有多大呢？差别就在于吴教授是引用了《从资本家手中拯救资本主义》的一段话，这也就是吴教授所说的“后来《财经》杂志刊登了我的全文”。《中国青年报》把引用的话当做了吴教授自己说的话，这也就是吴教授所说的“别人抄录的时候写错了”。

Now, let us continue the analysis. There are two types of quotation: one is to express a differing view, quoting and then criticizing. The other is to quote and then express being enlightened. Professor Wu said: “I myself found this passage very enlightening and would like to share it with you all.”

现在，我们继续分析。引用有两种，一种是表示不同的观点，引用之后进行批评。一种是引用之后，表示受到启发。吴教授说：“我自己读了这段话觉得很有启发，愿意在此贡献给诸位。”

So the entire passage “The first threat comes from vested interest groups, who have already occupied a strong position in the market and still seek to maintain their position. The second threat comes from the vast impoverished population” clearly enlightened Professor Wu, and he appreciated it greatly; otherwise, Professor Wu would not have “shared it with you all.” Who would “share” something they do not appreciate “with you all”?

那么“第一个威胁是来自既得利益集团，他们已经在市场中占据了强势地位，还企图继续维持其地位。第二个威胁来自庞大的贫困人群”这一整段话，显然是启发了吴教授，而且很欣赏，否则，吴教授也不会把这段话“贡献给诸位”。谁会把不赞赏的话“贡献给诸位”呢？

We ask Professor Wu to clarify: regarding this passage he says he “found very enlightening and would like to share with you all,” does he agree with it or not? If he does not agree, he can completely deny having said “the poor oppose reform.” If he “found it very enlightening and would like to share it with you all,” can he claim not to agree?

我们请吴教授把话说清楚，对这段所谓“很有启发，愿意在此贡献给诸位”的话，究竟是赞成，还是不赞成？如果不赞成，就可以完全否认说过“穷人反对改革”的话。如果“很有启发，愿意在此贡献给诸位”，能说不赞成吗？

So, we ask: How should we understand the passage Professor Wu quoted and said he “found very enlightening and would like to share with you all”—“The first threat comes from vested interest groups, who have already occupied a strong position in the market and still seek to maintain their position. The second threat comes from the vast impoverished population”? Should we understand it as Professor Wu agreeing? Or disagreeing? If he disagrees, why did he say he “found it very enlightening and would like to share it with you all”?

那么，请问：我们究竟对吴教授引用的、并且“很有启发，愿意在此贡献给诸位”的那段话“第一个威胁是来自既得利益集团，他们已经在市场中占据了强势地位，还企图继续维持其地位。第二个威胁来自庞大的贫困人群”，应该怎样理解？是理解为吴教授赞成呢？还是不赞成呢？如果不赞成，为什么又说：“很有启发，愿意在此贡献给诸位”呢？

Professor Wu, since you want to establish “rules for academic debate,” then please first abide by the rules yourself, and do not equivocate.

吴教授不是要建立“学术讨论的规则”吗，那就请自己先遵守规则，不要含糊其词。

2. Do not accuse others of labeling while you yourself label others

二、不要别人扣帽子，自己却给别人扣帽子

At the “China Economic 50-Person Forum,” Wu Jinglian delivered a speech proposing a rethinking of reform, arguing that:

在“中国经济50人论坛”吴敬琏发表讲话，提出在反思改革，认为：

The shareholding reform of large state-owned enterprises, the reform of the management system and property rights in monopoly industries, and the market-based allocation of basic economic resources have all progressed slowly due to numerous obstacles.

大型国有企业的股份化改制、垄断行业的管理体制和产权制度改革、基本经济资源的市场化配置等由于障碍重重而进展缓慢。

The second defect is that the legal environment necessary for the normal operation of a modern market economy has yet to be established.

缺陷二是现代市场经济正常运转所必须的法治环境迟迟未能建立。

The third defect is that the public services that the government must provide, such as education and basic social security, have not been strengthened but, on the contrary, show a tendency to weaken.

缺陷三是政府必须提供的教育、基本社会保障等公共服务不但没有加强，相反有削弱的趋势。

The fourth defect is that the extensive growth model adapted to the traditional socialist economic system is difficult to transform into an intensive growth model.

缺陷四是与传统社会主义经济社会体制相适应的粗放增长方式难以向集约增长方式转变。

Then he said: As intellectuals, economists should, in the spirit of “academic independence and freedom of thought,” put forward their own views with reasoned arguments and supporting evidence, and bear independent responsibility for whether these views conform to academic norms.

然后，他说：经济学家作为知识人，应该按照“学术独立，思想自由”的精神，言之成理、持之有故地提出自己的见解，并且对这些见解是否符合学术规范独立地负责。

Wu Jinglian believes that the public is puzzled and even strongly dissatisfied with the widespread existence of various negative phenomena, while scholars have offered very different interpretations of the causes of these negative phenomena.

吴敬琏认为，大众对种种消极的现象广泛存在感到迷惑不解，甚至强烈不满，而学界人士对这些消极现象产生的原因作出了很不相同的解读。

Regarding some interpretations within the academic community, Wu Jinglian commented that certain “old guards of the traditional socialist system,” exploiting the public’s dissatisfaction with the current state of society and scholars’ legitimate questions about reform and development, have revived a proposition raised over a decade ago: that “abolishing the planned economy and implementing marketization” means “changing the socialist system and implementing the capitalist system.” He said these people are trying to steer the public in a direction opposed to market-oriented reform. (Wu Jinglian: Some People Are Trying to Steer the Public Against Market-Oriented Reform, *China Youth Daily*, February 13, 2006)

对于学界存在的一些解读，吴敬琏评价说，一些传统社会主义体制的“老近卫军”，利用大众对我国社会现状的不满情绪，和学界人士对改革和发展中一些问题的正当质疑，重新提出十几年前已经提出过的“取消计划经济，实行市场化”就是“改变社会主义制度，实行资本主义制度”的命题。他们指称过去20多年的中国改革，是由“西方新自由主义主流经济学”主导的，执行的是一条机会主义路线，或称“资产阶级自由化的改革路线”。吴敬琏说，这些人正力图把人们引向反市场化改革的方向上去。(《吴敬琏：有人正力图把人们引向反市场化改革》2006年2月13日《中国青年报》)

We must ask: Since this is an academic discussion, different opinions should be allowed. But Wu Jinglian says: certain “old guards of the traditional socialist system,” exploiting the public’s dissatisfaction with the current state of society and scholars’ legitimate questions about reform and development, have revived a proposition raised over a decade ago: that “abolishing the planned economy and implementing marketization” means “changing the socialist system and implementing the capitalist system.”

我们要问：既然是学术讨论，就应该允许不同意见存在，但是吴敬琏说：一些传统社会主义体制的“老近卫军”，利用大众对我国社会现状的不满情绪，和学界人士对改革和发展中一些问题的正当质疑，重新提出十几年前已经提出过的“取消计划经济，实行市场化”就是“改变社会主义制度，实行资本主义制度”的命题。

From press reports, we have not yet seen any economist or scholar actually putting forward such a view. This seems like baseless labeling. One cannot help but ask: Is this an academic discussion, or is it opening a hat shop? [1]1 “Opening a hat shop” (开帽子铺) is a Chinese idiom referring to the practice of arbitrarily labeling or branding people with political epithets, a tactic common during political campaigns. This method of suppressing differing views by raising them to the level of political principle reminds one of the five economists who criticized Wu Jinglian’s “casino theory.” Professor Wu only said the stock market was “like a casino,” but it was twisted into “is a casino.” Can academic discussion proceed with such a sleight of hand that swaps concepts?

从报刊的报道来看，我们还没有看到哪位经济学家和学者提出这样的观点。这好象是在捕风捉影地扣帽子。人们不禁要问，这是学术讨论，还要开帽子铺？这种上纲上线地压制不同观点的做法，让人想起五大经济学家批判吴敬琏的“赌场论”，吴教授只讲了“像赌场”，结果被改成了“是赌场”。这种偷换概念的手法，能进行学术讨论吗？

I have consulted many dictionaries and cannot find an explanation for the term “old guards of the traditional socialist system.” If you are criticizing a certain viewpoint, criticize it directly. Why add the label “old guards”? Is it that only you are allowed to raise criticism to the political level, while others’ views are not tolerated?

我查了很多词典，也找不到“传统社会主义体制的老近卫军”的解释。批评什么观点，就批评什么，为什么要加“老近卫军”这个字眼，还是只许自己上纲上线地批评别人，容不得别人的观点。

3. Opposing a bad market economy does not mean opposing the market economy

三、反对坏的市场经济不等于反对市场经济

Professor Wu Jinglian has always said there are two kinds of market economy, one good and one bad. “Market economy” is a universal concept; “good market economy” and “bad market economy” are particular concepts. Therefore, opposing a “bad market economy” does not mean opposing the “market economy.” The broad masses of the people criticize exorbitant medical fees, education fees, and housing prices precisely because they oppose a “bad market economy.” Turning public welfare services like healthcare and education into market commodities runs counter to the prevailing practices of developed countries. The inflated prices in real estate are not only unaffordable for ordinary people but also generate massive long-term loans, affecting the adjustment of the industrial structure. More importantly, these “three highs” [2]2 “Three highs” (三高) refers to the high costs of medical care, education, and housing. suppress domestic demand and create bottlenecks in the economy.

吴敬琏教授一直说有两种市场经济，一种是好的，一种是坏的，“市场经济”是全称概念，“好的市场经济”、“坏的市场经济”是特称概念。因此反对“坏的市场经济”并不等于反对“市场经济”。广大人民群众对虚高医疗费、教育费、房价的批评，是反对“坏的市场经济”，因为把医疗、教育等公益事业泛市场化，不符合当前国际上发达国家的惯例，房地产的虚高价格，不但普通百姓难以承受，而且造成了大量长期贷款，影响了产业结构的调整。更重要的是这“三高”影响了内需，造成了经济的瓶颈。

Wu Jinglian speaks at length about the rule of law. So we must ask: Since “socialist public property is sacred and inviolable,” why are state-owned assets sold off by some local governments without discussion and approval by the People’s Congress? How are the people’s rights to information and supervision exercised? Is selling state assets at below-market prices illegal? Is selling state assets at below-market prices a manifestation of a bad market economy?

吴敬琏大讲法治，那么我们要问，“社会主义的公共财产神圣不可侵犯”，为什么不经人民代表大会讨论和批准，国有资产被一些地方政府卖掉？广大人民的知情权、监督权如何体现？贱卖国有资产，是不是违法？贱卖国有资产，是不是坏的市场经济的表现？

The broad masses of the people oppose a bad market economy precisely in order to achieve a good market economy.

广大人民群众反对坏的市场经济，正是为了要好的市场经济。

Finally, I want to say: I have great respect for Professor Wu. To be honest, I still vividly remember his article “The Stock Market Cannot Be Too Black” published in *Southern Weekend* in 2000. I also remember his 2001 program on CCTV criticizing the irregularities in the stock market. I have written many articles explaining that “like a casino” and “is a casino” are different concepts, and the key point is to criticize the lack of regulation in the stock market. I still believe that the decline in the stock market in recent years has nothing to do with Professor Wu’s personal views. What should be reflected upon is why the A-share market is not standardized.

最后，我要说的是：我对吴教授是很尊重的，实事求是地说，对吴教授在2000年发表在《南方周末》的《股市不能太黑》那篇文章，我至今记忆犹新。对于吴教授2001年在中央电视台批评股市不规范的节目，我也记忆犹新。并且写了不少文章说明“像赌场”与“是赌场”是不同的概念，关键是批评股市不规范。现在，我仍然认为，近几年的股市下跌，与吴教授个人的观点无关。应该反思的是A股市场为什么不规范。

In the past two years, some of Professor Wu Jinglian’s views in his talks have been confusing. For example, in an interview with a reporter from *Jinling Evening News*, Wu Jinglian said, “holders of tradable shares are in a dominant position,” and “who ultimately are the non-tradable shareholders? They are the entire people.” This confuses concepts. The current A-share market includes both private and state-owned enterprises. The non-tradable shares of private listed companies belong to their founders, not to the entire people. If non-tradable shares are said to belong to the entire people, would the major shareholders of private enterprises agree? Would this not amount to depriving them of private property? Is this consistent with the law? Therefore, it can only be said that the state shares and state-owned legal-person shares of state-controlled companies belong to the entire people. Moreover, some legal-person shares have already been purchased by private enterprises and are the private property of the buyers.

最近两年吴敬琏教授谈话中的某些观点，让人感到云山雾罩。例如：吴敬琏教授与《金陵晚报》记者的谈话说“流通股股东处于优势地位”，“非流通股东最终是谁呢，是全体人民。”这就混淆了概念，现在A股市场既有民营的，也有国营的。民企上市公司的非流通股是发起人的，不是全体人民的，如果说非流通股是全体人民的，那么民企的大股东愿意吗？这岂不成了剥夺私人财产吗？这符合法律吗？所以只能说国有控股公司的国家股、国有法人股是全体人民的。另外，还有一些法人股已经被民企购买，也是购买者私人的。

Professor Wu’s claim that “holders of tradable shares are in a dominant position” actually pits the 1.3 billion people against the 39 million (calculated based on dual account openings in the Shenzhen and Shanghai stock markets) stock investors. These 39 million stock investors involve 39 million families, over 100 million people. Are these 100 million people not part of the people? Are the 39 million stock investors who bought tradable shares no longer part of the people? From a legal perspective, these 39 million stock investors are dual shareholders: they are both shareholders of the tradable shares they hold and shareholders of the state-owned non-tradable shares, which also include their share.

吴教授所谓的“流通股股东处于优势地位”，实际是把13亿人民与3900万(按深沪股市双向开户计算)股民对立起来，3900万股民涉及到3900万个家庭，1亿多人，难道这1亿多人就不是人民了吗？难道3900万股民买了流通股，他们就不是人民了吗？从法理上说，3900万股民是双重股东，他们既是自己所持有的股票的股东，也是国有非流通股的股东，国有资产也有他们一份。

By saying “who ultimately are the non-tradable shareholders? They are the entire people,” Professor Wu on the one hand deprives private listed companies of their private equity in non-tradable shares, and on the other hand deprives the 39 million stock investors of their share of state-owned shares. This is logically confused.

吴教授用“非流通股东最终是谁呢，是全体人民”，一方面剥夺了民企上市公司的非流通股的私人股权，另一方面又剥夺了3900万股民对国有股的那一份权力。这在逻辑上是混乱的。

Professor Wu Jinglian also said: “In the past, with state-owned banks, we worked for many years, and their capital became zero, or even negative. How can such a bank be trusted by investors? The first person to come in has to bear the risk; later investors will follow, and the price will get higher and higher.” “Chinese people easily have nationalistic complexes and are easily emotional. This is understandable, but if they are too emotional, problems can arise. To solve the problems of state-owned banks, we must carefully identify the crux of the issues.” (Wu Jinglian Does Not Agree with the Theory of State-Owned Banks Being Sold Cheaply, Says Chinese People Are Easily Emotional, *The Beijing News*, December 10, 2005)

吴敬琏教授还说：“之前国有银行，我们搞了许多年，资本金变成了零，甚至负数，这样一个银行让投资者怎么信赖呢？第一个进来的人需要承担风险，后来的投资者才会随后进入，价格才会越来越高。”“国人容易有民族情结，很容易情绪化，这是可以理解的，但是如果过于情绪化，就容易出问题。要解决国有银行的问题，就要仔细地把问题的症结弄清楚。”(《吴敬琏不赞同国有银行贱卖论称国人容易情绪化》《新京报》2005年12月10日)

Here we must first explain that before the state-owned banks went public, their assets had already been stripped; their capital was not zero. Their assets are not merely book values, and for a country’s financial system, they have strategic significance. Then we can examine this issue by comparing A-shares and H-shares: If bank shares listed in Hong Kong were not sold cheaply, then the issuance of bank shares on the A-share market was sold expensively, because why would the issuance price on the mainland be several times higher? If the mainland issuance price was appropriate, then the issuance in Hong Kong was a cheap sale — why was the price several times lower than on the mainland?

这里我们首先要说明，国有银行上市之前已经过资产剥离，资本金不是零，其资产不仅仅是账面的，而且对一个国家金融系统来说具有战略意义。然后我们从A股与H股比较来看这个问题：如果在香港上市的银行股没有贱卖，那么A股市场银行发行股票就是贵卖了，因为都是银行股为什么内地发行价要高几倍？如果内地发行价正合适，那么到香港发行就是贱卖了，为什么比内地发行价要低几倍？

Let us ask Wu Jinglian, chief economist of China International Capital Corporation, to explain: the A-share issue price of Sinopec was 4.22 yuan, while the H-share issue price was 1.60 Hong Kong dollars. The gap is one and a half times. Was it a fire sale of H-shares, or an overpriced sale of A-shares? At the time, the National Social Security Fund also entered the A-shares at 4.22 yuan and was trapped for a long time. Now the Social Security Fund has finally broken even, but it watches the H-shares making money. What kind of problem is this?

我们再请中金公司首席经济学家吴敬琏说一说，中石化A股发行价4.22元人民币，H股发行价1.6元港币。格差一倍半，究竟是H股贱卖，还是A股贵卖？当时的社保基金也是以4.22元人民币进入的A股，被套了很长时间。现在社保基金虽然解套了，但是却眼看着H股赚钱，这又是什么问题？

Professor Wu says, "The first person to enter needs to bear the risk; only then will later investors follow, and the price will get higher and higher." So between the first entrants into A-shares and H-shares, which bore the greater risk? Everyone knows that the risk for H-shares is smaller. Then let Professor Wu explain why the Social Security Fund was made to enter the riskiest A-shares, while the low-risk H-shares were left for international investors. Does Professor Wu not talk every day about equality of opportunity? Why is there no equality of opportunity between the Social Security Fund and international investors?

吴教授说“第一个进来的人需要承担风险，后来的投资者才会随后进入，价格才会越来越高。”那么A股与H股的第一个介入者，哪一个风险大？谁都知道H股的风险小，那么请吴教授说一说，为什么让社保基金介入风险最大的A股，而风险小的H股留给国际投资者？吴教授不是天天讲机会公平吗？为什么社保基金与国际投资者的机会不公平？

Professor Wu is the chief economist of China International Capital Corporation, and CICC underwrote Sinopec. The H-shares issued in Hong Kong were 1.60 Hong Kong dollars, and the A-shares were 4.22 yuan. The difference between 1.60 and 4.22 formed the company's capital reserve fund, which was immediately owned by all investors, including those in Hong Kong and overseas, causing the assets of mainland shareholders to be devoured by international shareholders. Why did Professor Wu remain silent in 2001 about the inequality of opportunity between mainland investors and international investors? Yet now he defends international investors' involvement in bank shares. Is this not fooling us ordinary people?

吴教授是中金公司的首席经济学家，承销中石化的是中金公司，在香港发行H股是1.60港币，发A股4.22元人民币，1.60与4.22中间的差价就形成了公司的资本公积金，这个公积金立即就被全体投资者所拥有，包括香港以及海外的投资者，使内地股民的资产被国际股东吞食。为什么吴教授2001年对内地投资者与国际投资者的机会不公平保持沉默？现在却为国际投资者介入银行股进行辩护，这是不是忽悠我们小老百姓！

Furthermore, when CNOOC's acquisition of an American oil company was obstructed by certain U.S. congressmen, why did Professor Wu not say that the U.S. congressmen were being emotional? Instead, he unilaterally criticized that "Chinese people are prone to nationalist sentiment." Do Americans not have nationalist sentiment?

还有，中海油收购美国石油公司受到美国某些国会议员的阻挠，为什么吴教授不说美国国会议员情绪化？却一味指责中国“国人容易有民族情结”，难道美国人就没有民族情结了？

Let us ask the renowned economist Professor Wu Jinglian to look at these reports:

我们请著名的经济学家吴敬琏教授看一看这些报道：

According to a disclosure by the Wall Street Journal, Chevron had already been lobbying Congress to block CNOOC's bid for Unocal. And at Chevron's instigation, more than 40 U.S. congressmen sent an open letter to President Bush, demanding that the government immediately conduct a strict review of CNOOC's acquisition plan on the grounds of national security and energy security. ("Unocal Postpones Voting Announcement, CNOOC Acquisition Hangs in the Balance," China Business Times, July 18, 2005)

据《华尔街日报》披露，雪佛龙已在国会活动，设法阻止中海油对优尼科提出的竞购。而在雪佛龙的发动下，美国40余位国会议员已向布什总统递交公开信，以国家安全和能源安全的名义，要求政府对中海油的并购计划立即进行严格审查。(《优尼科推迟发布表决公告中海油收购案悬而未决》《中华工商时报》2005年7月18日)

Recently, CNOOC's acquisition of the U.S. oil giant Unocal has caused panic in the American news media, which have been loudly propagating the "China threat" theory, fearing that the United States will become a subordinate nation. The New York Times wrote on July 31 that these reports are shortsighted and ignorant; Americans should not fear China but should instead learn from China. ("Fear of China Is Alarmist; Learning from China Is the Right Path," International Finance News, August 1, 2005)

近日，中海油收购美国石油巨头优尼科引起了美国新闻媒体的恐慌，他们大肆渲染中国经济威胁论，害怕美国会沦为从属国。《纽约时报》7月31日撰文指出，这些报道是短见而无知的，美国人不应害怕中国，反而应向中国学习。(《畏华论杞人忧天学中国才是正道》《国际金融报》2005年8月1日 )

In fact, every country must consider its national economic security and financial security. Russia also did not allow Chinese oil companies to acquire shares of Yugansk. Why should Chinese people not need to consider financial security? Everyone knows that listed companies disclose information publicly, and there are no secrets from major shareholders in particular.

其实，任何国家都要考虑国家经济安全和金融安全，俄罗斯也是不允许中国的石油公司去收购尤甘斯的股票。为什么中国人就不需要考虑金融安全。谁都知道上市公司是公开信息的，特别是对大股东没有秘密可言。

Just as some people were counting on international investors to help reform China's banks, the media reported:

就在某些人指望国际投资者帮助中国的银行进行改造时，媒体报道：

The Bank of China sold 10% of its equity to the Royal Bank of Scotland, Merrill Lynch, and the Li Ka-shing Foundation as early as August this year. But reports indicate that Merrill Lynch has secretly transferred some of its shares to two hedge funds with offices in Hong Kong. It seems Merrill Lynch is not a strategic investor at all, but merely a tactical speculator, grabbing a profit and running away — no different from mainland Chinese securities firms.

中国银行早于今年8月份出售10%股权予苏格兰皇家银行、美林及李嘉诚慈善基金等等，但有报道指，美林已暗地里将部分股份转让予两家在港有办事处的对冲基金，看来美林集团也不是什么战略投资者，只不过的战术投机者，赚了一把就跑，这与中国内地的券商没有什么两样。

In comparison, Chinese people merely say that state-owned banks were sold at a fire-sale price, without any "foreign threat" theory, yet Professor Wu criticizes them, saying "Chinese people are prone to nationalist sentiment." Is this not a double standard?

相比较而言，中国人士只说国有银行被贱卖，还没有什么“外国威胁论”却被吴教授指责为中国“国人容易有民族情结”。这是不是双重标准？

In academic debate, double standards cannot be used. Why does Professor Wu criticize that "Chinese people are prone to nationalist sentiment"? Do Americans not have nationalist sentiment? Professor Wu says, "We should establish rules for academic debate; without such rules, I am not prepared to participate in the discussion." Yet he continuously gives interviews and comments on views he disagrees with. We cannot figure out: is Professor Wu participating in the discussion, or is he not?

学术讨论，是不能用双重标准的，为什么吴教授要指责“国人容易有民族情结”，难道美国人就没有民族情结了？吴教授说“应该建立一个学术讨论的规则，如果没有这个规则的话，我是不准备参加讨论的”，但是他又不断发表谈话，评论他所不同意的观点，我们搞不清楚，吴教授是参加讨论呢？还是不参加讨论呢？

Online editor: Jia Fei

网络编辑: 嘉扉