"Mass entrepreneurship and innovation" is a nationwide wave of innovation and entrepreneurship advocated since 2014. To be honest, Lao Miao and many friends around me used to dismiss it. Entrepreneurship is not that simple. Nine out of ten people are not suitable, and the remaining one faces a narrow chance of survival. Innovation is even harder. Most of us will never create an innovation with social impact in our lifetime, let alone make it commercially successful. If you are a rich second generation, you can treat entrepreneurship and innovation as a hobby; if you succeed, everyone is happy, and if you fail, you don't lose much. But for ordinary people, once they fall into a pit, they may not climb out for years. In many cases, failed entrepreneurship leads to bankruptcy, squandering years of savings. Many people may share my view, so the implementation of "mass entrepreneurship and innovation" has been very difficult. Most of us dare not start businesses or innovate; the national awareness of innovation and entrepreneurship remains weak, even showing a downward trend. However, the harm of weak national entrepreneurship and innovation awareness finally hit us this year. In the past two years, compared to the impact of the 2020 pandemic, the general consensus is a lack of confidence. Many capital and large enterprises are also contracting; even Huawei is encouraging itself to "survive." Those who were eager to start businesses have become "daring but timid." The reduction in entrepreneurship and innovation directly leads to a significant decrease in employment opportunities. Then come waves of closures, store shutdowns, layoffs, salary cuts, and unemployment. For young people, the first choice is to become civil servants, teachers, doctors, or work in state-owned enterprises. The craze for civil service exams and their difficulty has long been a hot topic; it is common to see master's and doctoral graduates from top universities like Tsinghua and Peking University working in street offices. This year, in a neighboring county of my hometown, there were only two teaching positions, but over 4,000 people signed up for the exam. The end of the universe is to get a government job, but most of us never get the chance to reach that "end." Don't forget the "56789" characteristics of private enterprises: they contribute 50% of taxes, 60% of GDP, 70% of technological innovation achievements, 80% of urban employment, and 90% of the number of enterprises. 80% of urban labor employment is in private enterprises; if this 80% collapses, the other 20% cannot compensate no matter how much it expands. It can be concluded that the government jobs and large state-owned enterprises that everyone is desperately squeezing into are not only becoming harder to enter, but also more competitive and with lower incomes. As the economy declines, fiscal revenue decreases, and civil servants who rely on fiscal funds and serve the people cannot expect to thrive alone. Therefore, to revitalize the economy, increase employment, and resolve the contradiction between people's growing need for a better life and unbalanced and inadequate development, the most urgent, specific, and practical goal is to let private enterprises develop first, activate capital, and provide a more relaxed environment for innovators and entrepreneurs. Mass entrepreneurship and innovation are the most fundamental cure for the current predicament. It is not only about encouraging grassroots entrepreneurship, but also encouraging corporate innovation, capital development, and industrial upgrading. Frankly speaking, this is the coldest moment for the economy in the past thirty years. Our society is still not friendly enough, or even quite hostile, to entrepreneurs and business owners. In 2021, Lenovo was brutally attacked by Sima Nan, and Ma Yun was vilified by hundreds of millions of young people as a bloodthirsty capitalist; they both chose to remain silent. They kept quiet, traditional media followed suit, and many self-media chose to ride the wave of traffic. For a time, public opinion was noisy, and the hatred of capital and entrepreneurs reached its peak in the past forty years. Not only is public opinion divided, but even WeChat Moments and class groups are full of verbal battles, intensifying social opposition and conflict, and social contradictions become more prominent under the pressure of economic downturn. Traditional culture says "scholars, farmers, artisans, merchants," with merchants at the bottom of society. Over the past forty years of reform and opening up, as the market economy has been valued, merchants have played an important or even major role in economic development, and their status has been continuously improved. But with the rapid spread of various negative public opinions on the internet in the past two years, the sense of honor of merchants has been stripped away again, severely dampening the enthusiasm and motivation for entrepreneurship and innovation, and hitting the confidence of entrepreneurs. Fear, retreat, hesitation, and hesitation have become the main mentality of current entrepreneurs, let alone new entrants. Why is it hard to find a job? Because you scared the "capitalists" away; some were scolded into bankruptcy, and some were scolded into playing golf in Spain. To alleviate this huge contradiction that should not exist in a socialist market economy, the first step is mutual understanding between workers and investors, mainly workers' understanding of investors. Because investors naturally understand workers, while workers naturally misunderstand investors. In other words, bosses naturally understand employees, while employees naturally misunderstand bosses. Mutual understanding is the prerequisite for resolving contradictions. The most critical role that "mass entrepreneurship and innovation" can play, and what Lao Miao believes is its greatest role, is to allow ordinary people to participate in or at least understand the process of entrepreneurship and innovation, understand what entrepreneurs do, what capital does, and understand the role of workers in the entire economic life. If young people do not start businesses, it is difficult for them to understand entrepreneurs, let alone the capital behind them. Misunderstanding is inevitable, and conspiracy theories abound. Widespread misunderstanding, coupled with social inequality, and incitement by many unscrupulous self-media, makes young people very prone to hating capital, the rich, entrepreneurs, and merchants. They turn their current involution and pressure into anger and hatred, venting it on entrepreneurs. Without experiencing the market, no one knows that the pot is made of iron. Encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation has the greatest effect of thoroughly improving labor-capital relations, enhancing mutual trust between social classes, strongly promoting economic development, and maximizing social fairness. What is the essence of labor-capital relations? Exploitation and being exploited? Oppression and being oppressed? That was under the old capitalist system. Employment and being employed? Working for money? Well, at least in form. However, from the perspective of economic operation, workers and employers are business partners, and the relationship is between customers and service providers. Employees are not working for the boss, but providing a service product. This is different from many people's intuition; let me give an example. Suppose you are a tailor and open a shop. Would you greet every customer with a smile? Because they are your source of business, and to exaggerate, they are your bread and butter. This is easy to understand, right? Let's look at another situation. You are still that tailor, and after a long time, you have some regular customers. Among them, there is a customer with a large family, and all their clothes are made by you. She becomes your biggest customer, accounting for more than 20% of your total business. Wouldn't you be sincerely grateful to her? Wouldn't you give her small gifts during festivals to express your gratitude? This is also easy to understand, right? Now look at the third situation. A bigger customer comes to you: I'll take over all your business; from now on, you only make clothes for my family, and I guarantee your business will be better than before. With stable customers and guaranteed income, would you do it? I believe most people would think this is a godsend and would do it. Then this customer becomes your only major client. Wouldn't you treat them like a god, serving them carefully, afraid of any negligence? The fourth situation: the same big customer comes and asks: How much do you earn a month after deducting rent, utilities, and other costs? You say about 10,000 yuan on average. Then he says to you: Come work for me; no need to rent a place, I'll buy the sewing machine, no need to pay utilities, and I'll give you 15,000 yuan a month. You only make clothes for my family. Would you do it? It's even more stable than the third situation, with lower risk and less investment. Wouldn't most people choose to do it? If we carefully examine these four situations, isn't the business essence the same? In all cases, you exchange services for compensation. The difference is that from the first to the fourth, you serve fewer people, and your income becomes more stable. But in form and law, the first three are pure commercial cooperation, using commercial agreements to restrict both parties, while the fourth is employment, governed by labor law and labor contracts. There is no problem with this. The problem is that due to the different forms, people have a great misunderstanding of the relationship, leading to a huge distortion in mentality. In the first three, we smile and are grateful to customers. But with a labor contract in hand, we immediately feel we are a vulnerable group, and the other party is a vampire exploiting and oppressing us. Many bosses also have this illusion: although the essence of their relationship with employees is commercial cooperation, they think, "I give you money, so you must obey me," giving rise to the absurd idea that they are the master and the employee is the servant. It is these two absurd views that have turned the labor-capital relations that should be harmonious under the socialist market economy into a serious opposition and contradiction. Some may think: I make clothes for the boss, and the boss gives me 15,000 yuan, but if I open my own shop, I could earn more. This is absolutely a huge misunderstanding. That's why I say the greatest social significance of "mass entrepreneurship and innovation" is to help us correctly understand labor-capital relations. As I said: without being beaten by society, no one knows that the pot is made of iron. In this society, more than 90% of people, if they rely on their skills as independent workers without relying on an organization, would earn far less than their salary, and might not even make ends meet. The economic value they can create is also far lower than when they rely on an enterprise organization. Mass entrepreneurship and innovation encourage modern people, especially young people, to embrace the market and accept its baptism. If possible, become someone who can achieve economic success and greatly promote economic development. If not suitable for entrepreneurship, at least have a basic understanding of the market, capital, enterprises, and workers. Do not become an anti-market force or a stumbling block to economic development. Some may think that although we have a transactional relationship with the boss, they have money and influence, and they use their strong position to oppress and exploit us; otherwise, why is there 996? This requires understanding: what is the root cause of the inequality in labor-capital relations? Why are bosses strong and employees weak? How should we change and respond? Let's go straight to the conclusion: In a market economy, the inequality in labor-capital relations stems from the imbalance of supply and demand. This has nothing to do with morality or culture; it is an economic law. If there is a large labor force in the market and jobs are scarce, if you were the boss, you would also make more demands on employees and try to lower labor costs. Lao Miao often emphasizes that we are a "socialist market economy." What does that mean? Our system maximizes the protection of workers' interests, imposes certain restrictions on the strong position of capital, and remains vigilant against the natural expansion of capital. Compared to other countries with similar economic levels, our system is more friendly and beneficial to workers. If you don't believe it, just look at the Labor Law. As a socialist country under the dictatorship of the proletariat, seeking welfare for the vast majority is an important policy of the government. But to benefit the majority, we must act according to objective laws and not at the expense of the minority. If we "hang the rich on lampposts" and redistribute their wealth, it may seem that the majority benefits, but it sacrifices the fundamental driving force of economic development, a large number of jobs, and the future of society. In the long run, it harms the interests of everyone. Therefore, to change the unequal status of labor-capital relations, the formulation and enforcement of laws and regulations are only basic guarantees. The most fundamental driving force, from public opinion to policy, from concept to action, is to be friendlier to entrepreneurs, more lenient to business owners, better to capital, and lighter on the burden of private enterprises. The worse the business environment, the fewer job opportunities, the lower the compensation bosses give employees, and the more involution workers face; this is a vicious cycle. Be better to private enterprises, and there will be more capital, more enterprises, more jobs, higher labor productivity, and naturally higher compensation for employees; this is a virtuous cycle. In one sentence: Make capital abundant and enterprises numerous, and the status of workers will naturally rise. As individuals in a market economy, understanding entrepreneurs, innovators, and capital is a required course for us, whether or not we are entrepreneurs or have the will and ability to become bosses. At the same time, being kind to entrepreneurs, supporting the development of private enterprises from public opinion, reducing their burdens, supporting capital development, and calling for greater reform and opening up are beneficial to the entire society and even more beneficial to ordinary workers. I know a young man who, while working as an employee, always complained about "stupid clients," "stingy bosses," and "foolish colleagues." Later, he started working independently. After several years of ups and downs, he is now incredibly clear-minded: he cherishes every business opportunity, respects every partner, and has greatly enhanced empathy. He has become a responsible man, and even his family life is more harmonious. Every time I mention him, Lao Miao sighs that the market really trains people. The good news is that since 2022, governments at all levels have continuously introduced supportive policies for entrepreneurship and innovation, from the National Development and Reform Commission's "Innovation Activity Week" theme to various local policies encouraging entrepreneurship, college student entrepreneurship policies, and returning-home entrepreneurship policies. It is clear that the government's support for private enterprises and entrepreneurship has never wavered. The real big move is the planning and implementation of the "unified national market." This marks a new and more vigorous stage of reform and opening up. In terms of legal system and public opinion, on July 25 last year, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Opinions on Providing Judicial Services and Guarantees for Accelerating the Construction of a National Unified Market," which on the one hand restricts platform monopolies and on the other hand severely cracks down on self-media operators who extort or maliciously defame enterprises. Subsequently, some unscrupulous self-media accounts that incited social opposition and attacked private capital were dealt with, and the internet began to clear up. We have just emerged from an agricultural society and just transitioned from a planned economy to a market economy. Therefore, our understanding of capital, enterprises, and especially private enterprises is also a gradual development process. After years of rapid development, it is inevitable to enter a trough at some stage. But with the completion of internet commercial infrastructure, we are still ushering in a new cycle and new opportunities. This new cycle and new opportunities will come more from innovation and greater marketization. This requires more participation, tolerance, and deeper understanding of entrepreneurship and innovation from the whole people. Buffett said, "Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful." Li Ka-shing ran away when the real estate market was hottest, and when the market was coldest, he came back to discuss acquiring the Hong Kong headquarters of Evergrande. At this moment when the economic chill feels bone-deep, it may be the perfect opportunity for those brave innovators and forward-thinkers.