First, the essence of supply-side structural reform is reform. Supply-side structural reform, first of all, is reform, the object is the institutional mechanism, which is the essence of supply-side structural reform. Leaving the essence of this "reform" to talk about supply-side structural reform will deviate from the original meaning. In fact, just from the Chinese grammar, whether it is "supply-side structural reform" or "supply-side reform", it is a partial orthogonal structural phrase, "supply-side" is the definite article, "reform" is the definite article, "supply-side" is the definite article, "reform" is the definite article. "Reform" is the central phrase, obviously "reform" is the central meaning. As the General Secretary pointed out, supply-side structural reform, the essential attribute is to deepen the reform. Supply-side structural reform is to change the supply side of China's old system that prevents the supply structure from adapting to changes in demand. Therefore, although the "three go, one down, one supplement" is the "supply-side structural reform" of the major tasks, but not the reform itself. The key is to see who is going to do it and in what way. The object of reform is the system, not the problem or task itself.

Second, supply-side structural reform is structural reform. The General Secretary emphasized that the supply-side reform we mentioned is "supply-side structural reform" in its entirety, or "supply-side reform" for short, but we can't forget the word "structural". However, the word "structural" should not be forgotten. In fact, as I understand it, supply-side structural reform is structural reform, and it is meaningless to talk about supply-side reform without the essence of "structural". The term "structural reform" actually comes from the West, emphasizing the reform of the institutional problems that produce structural contradictions, including the relationship between the government and the society, the government and the market, and the government and the enterprises, for example, the reform of the labor market and the welfare system in Europe. In China, structural contradictions have become more prominent, especially the serious problem of overcapacity. There are special institutional reasons for such problems, mainly the distortion of government-business relations. In fact, the supply side of the original is not a problem, the reason why there is a problem, because there is a "tangible hand" in the opposite role. Supply-side structural reform, is to rationalize these relationships, so that the market really play a decisive role in resource allocation, the ground into the "zombie enterprises", let it "into the ground for peace".

Third, the supply-side structural reform is not equal to the supply school of thought. The General Secretary emphasized that the supply-side structural reform that we are talking about is not the same thing as the supply school of Western economics, and that the supply-side structural reform should not be regarded as a replica of the Western supply school. As we all know, the supply school is a school of economics that emerged in the United States in the 1970s. The supply school believes that the growth of production is determined by the supply and effective use of factors of production such as labor and capital. The supply school strongly advocates substantial tax cuts, believing that tax cuts will stimulate people to work more. Supply-side structural reform, although it also includes the demand to reduce the burden on enterprises by lowering taxes and fees, not only is the nature of the reform fundamentally different from that advocated by the supply school, but also the scope of the reform goes far beyond that advocated by the supply school.

Fourth, supply-side structural reform is not equal to structural adjustment. Now there is a misunderstanding that supply-side structural reform is structural adjustment. In fact, supply-side structural reform, although associated with structural problems, is not equivalent to structural adjustment either in connotation or in specific measures. In the past, structural adjustment usually employed three means, namely economic, legal and administrative, and more often than not, administrative means were employed. Obviously, the supply-side structural reform this time, although it does not exclude the necessary administrative and legal means, such as reducing loss-making subsidies, stopping loans to zombie enterprises, and implementing corporate bankruptcy in accordance with the law, etc., but unlike in the past, the adjustment of the structure will be mainly through the method of reform, and solve the problem from the institutional mechanism. Supply-side structural reform, it is the traditional way of adjusting the structure to reflect on the initiative to make choices.

Fifth, the supply-side structural reform is not to engage in a new planned economy. Now there is a saying in society that promoting supply-side structural reform is to engage in a new "planned economy". This is obviously a misunderstanding. The key to supply-side structural reform is to further stimulate the vitality of market players and give better play to the decisive role of the market in the allocation of resources. This is the improvement of the socialist market economic system, never to return to the old way of planned economy. In the past, it was precisely because the role of the market mechanism was not played enough, and the government intervened too much, resulting in the market not being able to clear in time and triggering a variety of structural contradictions. Although the supply-side structural reform may have a variety of different programs, but I think that such a program, even if the name of the "plan", is not the original sense of the planned economy. What is needed now is institutional reform, if only adjust the structure, but not change the system, it will inevitably fall into the strange circle of "after a few years and another adjustment". This is exactly the supply-side structural reform to solve the problem].