If a system is only so strong as a minority group of government and real estate developers blindly “big fortune”, and so are most of the real owner of land and damage consumer interests, are not worthy of reflection? However, the current “real estate macro control,” the real priority of governments at various levels, rather than developers, not buyers. If you can not use administrative means and legal means — in the sequence where there is no “market-oriented means” to speak of the government in the real estate chain link enormous benefits cut off, it will be impossible to achieve expected “control purposes”, it would be difficult to get out, “the more the more price-control” of the cycle.

classical economics of the land, labor and capital production of the three elements of doctrine, not only classical, but “this Code.” Similar to “Land is the mother of wealth, labor is the father of wealth,” so vivid and full of simple philosophical discourse, but the implication is the real long-term thinking. Land in production and accumulation of wealth in the process of the importance of not being in today’s “emerging Canadian Transition” China’s most vividly embody it?

look at the endless stream of “Fortune list” of “first”, the number of real estate is started and how many people’s wealth is based on the real estate empire for the most the core of the weapon, they will understand why the classical economists always the first to land as a factor of production. We are now re-look at the various levels of local government finance, “Land of financial” without exception, has become the distinctive characteristics. This shows that this land has become a very small number of “capable” with the Government’s way of making money and lifeblood.

However, the vast majority of land in urban and rural areas has become the current burden on the livelihood of ordinary people and wealth “reducer.” This focus on performance in the rapid rise in housing prices, the rising rate of its residents far more than the growth rate of disposable income; the high cost of home buyers, with the residents than the average annual income is also far higher than the world average. In recent years the central government repeatedly “macro-economic adjustment,” It is regrettable, however, the more “control” rather than the more housing prices rise, the more real estate investment growth.

Why is this so? May wish to analyze the entire real estate industry chain. In the main parties, including farmers, villages and towns administrative organizations and their rulers, local government, real estate developers, home buyers, the biggest profit is the local government, followed by real estate developers, towns and villages executive power once again, farmers and the interests of home buyers is impaired. The surface of the mechanism of which is the major cost of housing on the ground outside the building in the land, the developer of the high land costs in terms of exactly what the huge local government land revenue, which monopolized the real estate market, land supply, They will sell land for the same price difference between a very low price from farmers to almost forcibly collected; even less than the local government land revenue 2% of the “compensation”, but also the great majority of all kinds names and channels falling into the hands of the village administrative organizations and their hands of those in power, the farmers lost their land have become “three noes,” and this has become like a wildfire, “real estate fever” in the interests of the biggest losers; huge amounts of local government land transfer income and real estate developers of high profits, and finally as the town of ordinary working-class home buyers to pay.

go deeper look, it is due to the current land system — me in this column have been analyzed through several essays. The main features of this system is that national ownership of urban land, rural land is collectively owned, regardless of who owned the land for housing construction by the Government must first concentrate on, through “招拍linked” to the development of such means as selling providers, to finally land for construction purposes; in particular, agricultural land, local governments not to cross directly into the market transactions. Thus, local government monopolized the land market. When there is only one provider, and limited supply, coupled with local government “with the times” to be “in accordance with the market economic laws,” wantonly implementation of the “transfer of market-oriented approach”, this land auction sale prices can not be恶炒to heaven?

do not know how to official data, from the media coverage and general estimation, the only country in 2006 at all levels of government “land income” amounted to 1 trillion yuan, equivalent to a total of 4 trillion yuan & ldquo ; budget “a quarter of the national fiscal revenue. According to some provinces and cities to the information received, I am afraid that this figure is still very conservative estimate, some cities in the “land income” almost in its “budget” half of fiscal revenue. But worrying is not included in the annual official “budget” of such a large “land income” is how to spend? Which level of government have specific announcements to the community? Similarly, if there “is not equivalent to the whole people but” the 1 trillion yuan, “the profits of state-owned enterprises”, in 2006 there are at least 2 trillion yuan of wealth to spend, have never been a clear public statement, let alone to consider what kind of society and has overseen. Conversely, if governments at all levels of “social security” does not have enough input, the vast majority of people are most concerned about “social security” is still stuck in “看不起病, can not afford to go places,养不起old” whirlpool, then we from the real “public finances” on the far.

think about is, in the face of such a large “land income”, the local government, how can the demand side does not want to warm? Hope that this is how real estate prices do not rise forever? How can tolerate rural land without a local government to “assemble transformation sell” and go directly to market transactions and directly above launching the so-called “small property room,” then? So people have seen a number of local governments under the pretext of not only the name of all kinds to all kinds of openly on behalf of a variety of measures to combat and to clamp down on this so that ordinary farmers and buyers to benefit from the “small property room,” and to find to support a variety of so-called theory of why the prohibition of “agricultural land directly into the market.” The problem is, if a system only allows a small number of powerful groups as the Government and the real estate developers blindly “big fortune”, and so are most of the real owner of land and damage consumer interests, are not worthy of reflection?

Seen in this light, the current “real estate macro control,” the real priority of governments at various levels, rather than developers, not buyers; difficult is precisely what “The Government self-control. ” So, if he can not use administrative means and legal means — in the sequence where there is no “market-oriented means” to speak of the government in the real estate chain link enormous benefits cut off, there likely to achieve the desired “control purposes”, it would be difficult to get out, “the more the more price-control” of the cycle.

However, at every turn on the “control” with the main non-governmental market accustomed to self-base for the object of his government, all of a sudden its “self-regulation”, easier said than done? Enterprise management theory and experience has proved time and again, “manager of self-management” is the most difficult. However, all outstanding enterprises, managers are to be “self-management” before the first important position, but also spend the most time and are doing the best. Some experts statistics, outstanding enterprises, the general managers come up with about 40% of the time and energy “self-management.” In fact, the reason is simple, a lazy even have their own poor management or management of a bad person, how to manage others and a team does? This reasoning applies equally to the Government’s social management and “macro-economic adjustment.”

Therefore, from the current “real estate macro-control” analysis of a series of phenomena, we see that the effective “government self-regulation” is the “macro-control,” a prerequisite for effective , more often the “macro-control” is actually “The Government of self-regulation and control.”

is our fervent hope that all levels of government to spend more time and energy to “self-management.”

Chinese version:越调控越涨价 从房地产调控看政府自我调控之难

如果一种制度只是让作为少数强势群体的政府与房地产开发商一味“大发横财”，而让属于多数的土地真正拥有者与消费者受损，难道还不值得反思？但当前“房地产宏观调控”的真正重中之重是各级政府，而非开发商，更不是购房者。如果不能运用行政手段与法律手段———在政府序列里是没有什么“市场化手段”可言的，将政府在房地产链中的巨大利益纽带斩断，就不可能达到预期的“调控目的”，就难以走出“越调控越涨价”的怪圈。

古典经济学有关土地、劳动与资本的生产三要素学说，不仅古典，而且“今典”。类似“土地是财富之母，劳动是财富之父”这样朴实生动而富有哲理的话语，蕴涵的却是真正长久的思想。土地在财富生产与积累过程中的重要性，不是正被当今“新兴加转轨”的中国体现得淋漓尽致吗？

看看那些层出不穷的“财富排行榜”中的“先富者”，有多少是以房地产起家的，又有多少人的财富帝国是以房地产为最核心利器的，就会明白为什么古典经济学家始终将土地作为{dy}位的生产要素了。再瞧瞧我们现在的各级地方政府财政，“土地财政”无一例外地成为了鲜明特色。可见，这土地成了极少数“能人”与政府的生财之道与命根子。

然而，土地却成了当前绝大多数城乡普通百姓的生活负担与财富“减速器”。这集中表现在住房价格的快速上升上，其上涨速度远超过居民可支配收入增长速度；住房购买成本极高，与居民平均年收入之比也远高于世界平均水平。中央政府近年来一而再地“宏观调控”，但令人遗憾的是，越“调控”，房价反而越上涨，房地产投资越增长。

何以如此？不妨来分析一下整个房地产的产业链条。在主要的当事人包括农民、村镇行政组织及其当权者、地方政府、房地产开发商、购房者中，{zd0}获利者是地方政府，房地产开发商其次，村镇行政当权者再次，农民与购房者则是利益受损者。其中的表层机理是，住房的主要成本不在地上建筑物而在地皮，对开发商而言的高额地皮成本恰恰是地方政府的巨额土地出让收入，后者垄断了房地产市场上的土地供给，他们将土地以同出让价格有着天壤之别的极低价从农民手中几近强行征集来；即便是不到地方政府土地出让收入2%的“补偿款”，也绝大部分以各种名目与渠道落入了村镇行政组织及其当权者手中，农民则成了失去土地的“三无人员”，成了这如火如荼的“房地产热潮”中{zd0}的利益受损者；巨额地方政府土地转让收入与房地产开发商的高额利润，{zh1}由作为城镇普通工薪阶层的购房者支付。

再往深层看，则是现行土地制度使然———我在本专栏中曾通过几篇短文分析过。这一制度的主要特点是，城镇土地属国家所有，农村土地属集体所有，不管是谁所有，用于住宅建设的土地必须先经政府集中，通过“招拍挂”等方式出让给开发商，才最终转为建设用地；尤其是农地，不得越过地方政府直接进入市场交易。由此，地方政府垄断了土地一级市场。当供给者只有一个，且供给量有限，加之地方政府“与时俱进”地再“按市场经济规律办事”，大肆推行“市场化转让方式”时，这土地拍卖出让价格还能不被恶炒到天上去？

不知官方数据如何，从媒体报道和大致的测算看，仅2006年全国各级政府的“土地收入”就达1万亿元，相当于总计4万亿元“预算内”全国财政收入的四分之一。根据笔者到一些省市所了解到的情况，这个数字恐怕还是非常保守的估计，一些城市的“土地收入”已近于其“预算内”财政收入的一半。但令人担忧的是，每年不列入正式“预算”的如此巨额“土地收入”是如何花费的？有哪级政府向社会具体公布过？如果再加上同样“属于全民所有却等于没有”的1万亿元“国有企业利润”，2006年至少有2万亿元财富的花费，从没有给过公众一个明确的说法，更谈不上什么社会审议与监督了。反之，如果各级政府对“社会保障”没有足够投入，绝大部分人最关心的“社会保障”仍然陷在“看不起病、上不起学、养不起老”的漩涡中，那么，我们离真正的“公共财政”就还很远。

想想也是，面对如此巨额“土地收入”，地方政府怎么能希望需求端不热烈？怎么希望这房地产价格不上升？又怎么能容忍农村土地未经地方政府“征集转化出让”而直接进入市场交易，并直接在上面盖房出售的所谓“小产权房”呢？于是人们看到了，一些地方政府不仅打着各种幌子，以各种堂而皇之的名义采取多种措施，打击并取缔这种使普通农民与购房者受益的“小产权房”，而且找来各种所谓的理论佐证何以禁止“农地直接入市”。问题是，如果一种制度只是让作为少数强势群体的政府与房地产开发商一味“大发横财”，而让属于多数的土地真正拥有者与消费者受损，难道还不值得反思？

由此看来，当前“房地产宏观调控”的真正重中之重是各级政府，而非开发商，更不是购房者；难点也恰恰是“政府的自身调控”。所以，如果不能运用行政手段与法律手段———在政府序列里是没有什么“市场化手段”可言的，将政府在房地产链中的巨大利益纽带斩断，就不可能达到预期的“调控目的”，就难以走出“越调控越涨价”的怪圈。

但是，动不动就“调控”非政府主体与市场而习惯了以自我为基点以他者为客体的政府，突然间要求其“自我调控”，谈何容易？企业管理理论与经验一再证明，“管理者的自我管理”是最难的。但凡是优秀的企业，管理者都是将“自我管理”摆在{dy}重要的位置，也都是花最多时间并做得{zh0}的。有专家统计，在优秀企业里，管理者一般拿出40%左右的时间与精力“自我管理”。其实，道理也很简单，一个连自已都懒于疏于管理或管理不好的人，怎么能够管理好别人和一个团队呢？这一道理同样适用于政府的社会管理与“宏观调控”。

因此，从当前“房地产宏观调控”的一系列现象剖析中，我们看到，有效的“政府自我调控”是其“宏观调控”有效的前提，更多时候的“宏观调控”其实是“政府自我调控”。

我们热切希望各级政府花更多的时间与精力去“自我管理”。

2007-08-09