Author 丨 Wang Yuanyuan Liu Yuanju
Editors 丨Li Jingyun Zhu Yimin
Image Source 丨 People's Vision
On the evening of January 12, the Weibo of "internet celebrity" economist Ren Zeping showed that the user was currently in a state of silence due to violations of relevant laws and regulations.
Just two days ago, Ren Zeping was concerned and hotly discussed by the market for his suggestions of "the central bank prints 2 trillion yuan more, and the society will have 50 million more children in 10 years", "we must seize the time window that can still be born in 75-85 years, and seize the introduction of a fertility encouragement fund", "Don't expect the post-90s and 00s" and so on.
It is worth noting that the other two who have recently received attention and were banned by Weibo as violating relevant laws and regulations are Zhang Ting and Lin Ruiyang, who are suspected of pyramid schemes.
Judging from the gag function of Weibo, the platform's expression of ban measures for accounts is different. For example, the company account "TST Court Secret" for Zhang Ting and his wife shows that "the user is temporarily silenced due to violations of the community convention".
As of December 14, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) interviewed the main responsible person and editor-in-chief of Weibo and imposed a fine on the main body of Weibo's operation. Therefore, the implementation of the ban on Ren Zeping's account may mean that the follow-up securities-related regulatory authorities may take action.
As of press time, Soochow Securities has not responded to the media about the incident.
It is interesting to note that Ren Zeping, who announced his high-profile membership in Soochow Securities in March 2021, has not yet registered as a practitioner of Soochow Securities in the Securities Association.
In some public forums, Ren Zeping's official title has always been "Invited Chief Economist of Soochow Securities". This shows that Soochow Securities is suspected of having always regarded Ren Zeping as the chief economist of the "outside", and what kind of cooperative relationship the two sides are, perhaps after this incident, Soochow Securities will make an official response.
Before being banned from Weibo, Ren Zeping was still publishing Plato's "Cave Parable" in the afternoon, suspected of alluding to himself and his views on "fertility funds" and "central bank release of water", that he was the first prisoner to get out of the cave, while most of his companions were still unconvincing prisoners in the dark.
Industry insiders say that from the earliest radical views to the current obscure "cave metaphor", or its rhetoric has received regulatory attention.
At present, after the suspension of Weibo, whether Ren Zeping and Soochow Securities will receive regulatory letters in the future has become a new focus of everyone.5 After all, in October last year, three Guosen Securities analysts who predicted the 2060 performance of catheter era had already received a warning letter from the regulator.
In fact, as early as the end of December 2021, Ren Zeping made a report entitled "What are the biggest risks and investment opportunities in 2022?" During the live broadcast, it was cut off by the platform.
Unlike this incident, its explicit view of the central bank printing 2 trillion yuan is too aggressive.
"The central bank's release of 2 trillion yuan of water is a very important topic that needs rigorous arguments. His views may have been more likely to stir up popular sentiment and receive some echoes, but they were too hasty. We see the screenshot of the fan message he posted, it is true that some people should send money to the state to have children, but how to deal with aging is definitely not so simple. If a large number of public opinion believes that the state should send money to stimulate fertility, then its consequences are believed to be what managers do not want to see. The industry insider said.
At present, ren Zeping has published two articles on his public account "Zeping Macro" - "The solution to low fertility has been found - China's fertility report" and "Several responses to the "Encourage Fertility Fund"" have been deleted.
Nancai Quick Review:
There are many ways to promote fertility and print money
(The following author is Liu Yuanju, a researcher at the Shanghai Academy of Finance and Law)
Recently, Ren Zeping, chief economist of Soochow Securities, released a research report saying that they have found a "solution to low fertility", that is, "establish a fertility encouragement fund as soon as possible, the central bank prints 2 trillion yuan more, and uses 10 years to give birth to 50 million more children in society". This immediately triggered a heated discussion in public opinion.
At present Chinese birth rate has fallen below 10 ‰, and it is expected that there will be negative population growth, and the consensus on the imperative of encouraging fertility has been formed, but there is no consensus on how to do it and how much effort to do it.
The way Ren Zeping said it does not necessarily lead to inflation. At present, with the epidemic of the relatively mild new crown variant of the Omiljung virus, it is possible that other countries around the world will gradually come out of the epidemic and restore production capacity after carrying this wave, as the drug capacity to control the virus is strengthened. This will put pressure on the domestic supply chain, and the domestic supply chain will shift to the domestic market to a greater extent. In the case of surplus capacity, a moderate increase in issuance may not necessarily trigger inflation. In addition, the digital yuan provides a better new means of issuing additional currency, which can realize the special use of funds and reduce the impact on prices.
But in any case, printing money directly is a very radical method. The direct purchase of government bonds by central banks in primary markets is the monetization of fiscal deficits. That is, when the government has a deficit when it cannot offset its revenue and expenditure, it is not like the usual borrowing from the market to issue bonds, but the government lets the central bank "print money" to make up for the deficit. The Chinese Civil Banking Law, passed in 1995, clearly stipulates that the central bank may not overdraft the government finances, and may not directly subscribe to or underwrite treasury bonds and other government bonds. The two special treasury bonds in China's history were basically the purchase of special treasury bonds by banks, and then the central bank purchased special treasury bonds from banks. Central banks buy treasuries from the secondary market, bypassing legal restrictions. On the one hand, this reflects the seriousness of the law, on the other hand, it also shows that technical problems are easy to solve, and the key lies in the understanding and attitude of the significance of fertility welfare.
Although there are different birth benefits in various places now, but the population is nationally mobile, the future gathering to large cities is still an irreversible law, then, from the motivation point of view, the capable place may not have the motivation, the dynamic place may not have the ability, obviously can not be sustained. Manpower growth is a national welfare, that is, the central government can harvest stable benefits from the national level, so birth subsidies must be a national policy, and can only be solved from the national level of fiscal expenditure.
In addition to printing money, there are also ways.
On December 16, at the State Council's new office held a regular briefing on State Council policies, Vice Minister of Finance Xu Hongcai said that as of now, 3.42 trillion yuan of new local government special bonds have been issued, accounting for 97% of the quota that has been issued, and the annual issuance work has been basically completed. This kind of local debt has the characteristics of a national debt. This quota can also be part of it, such as two trillion yuan issued by the Ministry of Finance, and then given local fertility welfare support according to the number of births of the local population. To some extent, this means a shift from infrastructure to fertility consumption, which is reasonable, after all, without the population, the efficiency of infrastructure will also decline.
Whether it is some of the current opinions, the tax increase on Dink or the imposition of a single tax, in essence, it is a cake, in fact, the government also has incremental means in hand, that is, to supply the families with children the biggest element they need: land. The land transfer fee can be partially refunded to solve the biggest problem of the childbearing family: the house. With the house, there is more room for children to move, and grandparents help to bring children there is also a place to live. This approach, for the economic cycle, is a factor increment.
Of course, this will cause a decline in the unit price of the house, which means that the current holders of real estate and those who have not had children will bear the cost. However, considering the implementation of the real estate tax, it is equivalent to making a transformation of the real estate tax and using this part of the income to stimulate fertility. From the overall point of view, the directional rationing of land, although it causes a decline in the unit price, but the increase in the overall area may not necessarily cause a decline in the total value of the country's entire real estate assets.
On a larger scale, the effect of a policy ultimately lies in the interaction with the policy targets, and welfare policies to promote fertility must be combined with a society that correctly understands fertility in order to have the greatest effect. Ren Zeping's so-called "Don't expect the post-90s and post-00s." This group of people from 75 to 85 years still has the concept of having many children and many blessings, and the post-90s and post-00s do not say that they have a second or third child, and many people are not even willing to get married", which is essentially a conceptual problem. The so-called modern society originally has the problem of double-curved discounting of consumer society, coupled with the wrong criticism of the traditional concept of "many children and many blessings" in the past, which has caused multiple distortions in the concept of fertility, and in order to obtain good policy results, it is necessary to break the distorted concept of fertility and understand the value of traditional social concepts, so as to achieve more with less.
The Paper: Less "Ren Zeping-style" sensationalism
Here are the comments from The Paper:
Ren Zeping brushed the screen again.
On January 10, Ren Zeping, an "internet celebrity economist", released the "Solution to Low Fertility Found - China Fertility Report", saying, "It is recommended to establish a fertility fund as soon as possible, the central bank prints 2 trillion yuan more, and uses 10 years of society to give birth to 50 million more children" "We must seize the time window that can still be born in the 75-85 generation" "Don't expect the post-90s and post-00s"...
There are so many "bright spots" in this report that the so-called Chinese fertility report is not so much a decision-making suggestion as a collection of hot search keywords.
After leaving Evergrande, Ren Zeping's professional ability in the field of macroeconomic research has been improved, and the outside world does not know. However, as a typical "net red economist" at present, it has to be said that his ability to win the attention of the public is getting better and better.
As a macroeconomic researcher, Ren Zeping has always been judging the real estate trend and attracting market attention. Now he crossed over to population policy research, of course, barely. Because of aging and low birthrate, it will directly affect the long-term future of the real estate market. But even though his previous views challenged common sense, he was still seen as a professional researcher.
But now making such a thunderous suggestion has undoubtedly greatly reduced his professionalism.
We retreat to his policy proposal itself, even if the media report is indeed intercepted, and the original text of his report is also carried out a so-called professional data argument, but in fact this model of argument has nothing to do with the reality we are facing.
This kind of research ignores the basic laws of market operation, and is even less aware of the pressures and challenges faced by economic transformation and upgrading in policy formulation. More importantly, he underestimated the choices of individuals and the rights of individuals: after the 75-85 he pointed out, I am afraid that he will have a ridiculous sense of "why is it always the same group of people".
Taking his suggestion that "the central bank over-issued two trillion yuan" as an example, it sounds as if a solution has been found once and for all, but the central bank printing money is by no means as simple as starting a printing press, which will have an unpredictable chain reaction on prices, monetary values, and asset values. As a doctor of economics, Ren Zeping will not be unaware of this.
Knowing this, but still putting forward public advice that lacks common sense, it can only be said that it is deliberately done in order to win traffic.
Macroeconomic regulation and control and the formulation of population policies are a scientific and precise decision-making process, not a "Ren Zeping-style" sensationalism. It should be built on respect for individual choices and lifestyles, and requires weighing the pros and cons, considering multiple factors, and providing precise insight into the future.
In the final analysis, fertility is a comprehensive decision made by individuals and families based on the living environment and individual needs, which needs to be comprehensively considered from many aspects such as the policy environment, the cost of social parenting, and the specific conditions of individuals. How to provide a more conducive social environment for fertility decision-making is the starting point for encouraging fertility.
From this point of view, it is okay, Ren Zeping said it does not count.
This issue is edited by Liu Xueying Intern Zhan Huinan