【新唐人2012年9月21日訊】美國《外交政策》雜誌9月11號發表「為甚麼中國永遠不會有華爾街」文章，內容指出，中國股市本質上不是企業所有權交換的地方，只是投機的場所。公司的股票只有小部分可以自由交易，控制權永遠掌握在國家手中。在這樣的市場上，未來能不能募到大量的資本，取決於和政府之間的關係，而不是創新的眼光。

專家指出，「國有企業」是中共一黨專制政權的輸血機器，因此當局無論如何都不願意放開自由市場經濟。

文章說，中國股市並非真正意義的股市。它以「國家」取代「市場」力量，排除了股市最基本的「定價」功能，把它變成了「投機」場所。而中國股票的價值，是市場流動性和投資者各種預期的反應，這些預期受政府政策以及對政府干預、補貼、刺激的最新謠言和猜測所驅動。對於投資者而言，有關企業戰略的信心、產品創新或是公司治理的品質，卻擺放在第二位，他們首先考慮的是政府想要怎麼樣。

文章說，北京實際上將非國有企業從股票市場上排除了出去，並要求國有企業的所有權「絕對控制在國家手裡」，國家佔至少51%的股份。由此，股市始終幾乎是國家及所有企業的專屬領地。這意味著一個公司的股票只有小部分可以自由交易，這一制度安排的負面影響遠遠超出了股市本身。

廣州經濟評論家鞏勝利指出，這造成國家成為貿易的主體。

廣州經濟評論家 鞏勝利：“作為一個國家整體和私營企業來競爭，這環境可想而知。環境亂套了，這個國家的貿易怎麼往前走？ 在跟全世界各個國家做生意當中，這個環境沒有辦法公正，也沒有辦法讓其他國家做外貿的公平的來競爭。”

鞏勝利指出，國家企業壟斷了資本和資源，國家資本只提供給國有企業，私營企業和集體企業的資本鏈都斷掉了，讓私營企業難以生存。比如「中國移動」公司佔據中國移動電信80%以上資源。

文章說，如果要真正改革市場，國家必須從中退出。中國必須向國內的私營企業和外國投資者開放，允許國企的私有化，使用更加成熟的控制方式，允許公司股份的全面流通。但是鞏勝利指出，中共當局一定不願意這樣做，因為它的一黨專制政權將會受到衝擊。

鞏勝利：“國有企業給一黨獨裁的政權提供了相當的利潤。他這個利潤是來自老百姓的，老百姓在高成本的前提下，交出更高的花費來買這些東西。比如水電煤氣。還有一個，中國共產黨，占有這個國家的運行成本，可能比政府的更高。比如黨委，宣傳部，統戰部。”

鞏勝利認為，中共花在黨內的錢，是法制社會裏不被允許的花費，相對而言，維持中國共產黨運行的成本非常可觀，因此，中共政權不會放棄國家壟斷的那些所謂國營企業。

《外交政策》文章也提到，允許真正的私有化，等同於將廣闊的經濟收益送給外國人，而政府將會失去對國內的控制。對於不計一切代價要維持統治的人來說，這是不可能發生的，如果真的發生了，我們反倒會非常驚訝。

採訪編輯/秦雪 後製/蕭宇

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.