Restrictions on purchases are not necessarily the best policy for “limited use” to be more fair and effective

On the evening of June 30, for a car dealer in Guangzhou, it was a sleepless night. The news of “starting to buy” suddenly came too suddenly! But in reality, it is not sudden.

It was suddenly said that it was because there was no wind in advance; it was not abrupt because of China’s megacity. “Limits” were inevitable. I said this when Beijing restricted the license at the end of 2010. The difference is limited to ears.

After 10 years of blowout development, China has become the world's largest new car sales nation. The annual sales volume of new car vehicles exceeded 18 million two years ago! Especially in the context of the 2008 financial crisis, everyone thought that the Chinese auto market would fall into a downturn in 2009. As a result, the Chinese auto market in 2009 was blown out the most.

This led to many people being dizzy and their minds were liberated. The prediction of the peak sales of Chinese cars is one bolder, 30 million, 40 million, and even 75 million satellites.

These predictions cannot be said to be completely unreasonable. The auto market and the macro-economy are in synch, maintaining an annual growth rate of 10%. In less than 10 years, they can exceed 40 million vehicles; according to the international average of thousands of people, 75 million vehicles are also entirely possible. of! The corporate economists and Nobel economists are not completely unfounded even if they are not eloquent—you can't argue on the basis that you are sufficiently good.

However, do not forget that the market is also constrained by the rigidity of social resources. Environmental protection, energy, roads, space, population, and these constraints are all rigid. Why Shanghai, Beijing limited license? Why did Guangzhou decide to limit the card after hesitated for so long? The essence of policy constraints is a reflection of the rigid constraints of social resources.

However, I did not endorse the government's purchase restriction behavior. On the contrary, I think that the restriction or restriction of purchase is not the best policy. The simple text is simple, but it is blunt and unfair. In comparison, “restricted use” is more effective, fairer and easier to accept.

Hong Kong, Paris, London, Rome, New York, and Tokyo are also basically limited, but people are restricted and there is no simple purchase restriction. The purpose of limiting the car is nothing more than a traffic jam, and the traffic jam is nothing more than downtown, so you can buy a car, but you shouldn't open it to the city center. For example, in Hong Kong, unless the rich, ordinary people, who will drive to Central? For example, in New York or Tokyo, you can try to drive to Manhattan or Ginza. One year's parking fee is enough to buy an Audi!

Yes, I support limited use, but there are also prerequisites. For example, you should first improve the public transport system. The subway is not as convenient as Tokyo and Hong Kong. At least, the site must be as dense as Beijing and Shanghai. For another example, if you limit the number of private cars, what about the large number of buses? Beijing's limit licensing time, the former governor Huang Huahua "Guangdong unlimited private cars limited bus" attitude won how warm applause. However, the private car was finally limited, and the bus was only loaded with GPS.