My opinion on the government's intervention in the market economy With the intensification of the subprime mortgage crisis, the American financial industry has fallen into a new round of storm. After Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest mortgage financing institutions in the United States, were taken over by the government, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers, the third and fourth largest investment banks in the United States, were also in trouble. The former was acquired by Bank of America and the latter was forced to file for bankruptcy protection. For 14 months in a row, the crisis caused by crazy speculation in the US housing market and financial industry continued to deteriorate, posing a serious threat to world financial stability and global economic growth. In the face of the severe financial crisis, the U.S. Treasury Department passed a $700 billion rescue plan to buy problem assets from troubled financial enterprises. After the rescue plan was approved by Congress, US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson promised to "act quickly and implement new powers, but also pay attention to ways and means" and stressed that "transparency" would be an important factor throughout the whole process. Subsequently, the governments of France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Austria also launched bank rescue plans with a total amount of 1.3 trillion euros (about 1.8 trillion US dollars). Since the subprime mortgage crisis broke out in the United States last summer, with the deterioration of the problem, there have been more and more reflections in all aspects, and the huge financial rescue plan in Europe and America has also put the topic of "government intervention in the market economy" in front of the world. Tracing back to the source, we should start from the law of value. The value of commodities is determined by the socially necessary labor time for producing commodities, and the exchange of commodities should be based on value. The performance of the law of value is that the price fluctuates around the value. When the price of a commodity rises, producers will increase their investment in the production of this commodity. If the supply of this commodity exceeds demand, the price will be reduced. Producers will cut production, the supply of goods exceeds demand, prices will rise again, and so on. This cycle is also a spontaneous adjustment of the market. This is what we usually call the invisible hand-the law of value. However, market supervision has great defects: spontaneity, blindness and lag. For example, the commodity producers in the above example can never make money by adjusting the production scale behind the price, so they need the macro-control of the government, that is, Keynes's visible hand, to save the economic crisis in the capitalist world. When the national economy is too cold or too hot, macro-control intervention is needed to promote the economic development in a benign direction. For the American economy, it seems that the state intervenes in the economy to make up for the market failure. Because Roosevelt's New Deal came into being against the background of the great crisis, in fact, before that, the capitalist world had experienced many economic crises. But if the situation is transplanted to China, it is too simple to explain the situation in China. Because China has not experienced a process from liberal capitalism to state monopoly capitalism. But gradually open the market under the planned economy system. It seems that we haven't experienced a major economic crisis since the founding of the People's Republic of China, but we just heard about the market failure. I'm afraid that's not the only reason. However, the government has not intervened in all economies. It only develops and manages important resources that some countries cannot deliver to others, such as oil, mineral deposits and other resources related to the lifeline of the country. I think, according to China's national conditions, it is completely correct for the government to do so, especially in the fields of ordnance and oil. If the state does not carry out macro-control, the consequences will not be as optimistic as they are now. Where can we talk about people's stability and unity and social stability? Although some corrupt elements have appeared in our government departments, we cannot deny our government's decision-making because of this. Economic administrative power may be corrupted under the planned economy system, and it is more likely to be corrupted in the process of intervening in market economic activities, and the harm of corruption may become more and more serious. Building a clean government is a complex legal system engineering. In order to prevent and reduce the corruption of economic administrative power and strengthen the construction of clean government in economic administrative organs, it is imperative for the government to intervene in the market economy and move towards the rule of law. Although the market economy is not an administrative economy, a planned economy or an examination and approval economy, it is by no means a laissez-faire and lawless economy. The market also has blindness and limitations. Under the condition of market economy, the government is not a shopkeeper, and it can't take a passive attitude towards the upcoming market mechanism failure, potential financial risks and economic chaos. It is necessary for the government to moderately intervene in the market economy. The government is the main body that intervenes in market economic activities and the most active subject of economic law. Therefore, it has become an important economic and legal issue that how the government can intervene in order to conform to the historical trend of economic system reform and the rule of law in market economy and achieve the expected intervention effect in a moderate, fair and efficient way. Market economy is an economy ruled by law. The rule of law and the rule of law govern both enterprises and the government. In other words, economic law should not only regulate the economic behavior of enterprises, but also regulate the government's intervention in the market economy on behalf of the state. In recent years, the voice of managing enterprises according to law is growing, and the understanding that enterprises should operate according to law tends to be unified. However, the emphasis on the rule of law in economic management is still somewhat eclipsed. At the beginning of the new central government's taking office and carrying out drastic government institutional reform, it is of great significance to emphasize the government's administration according to law and the government's intervention in the market economy towards the rule of law. Summing up the experience and lessons of the government in managing the economy for many years, it is pointed out that in order to truly govern the country according to law and build a socialist market economy country ruled by law, the government must take the lead in setting an example and be a promoter rather than a resister of the reform of the rule of law. Of course, this is different from the whole official and the whole people in the "Cultural Revolution". Obviously, if the government itself does not act in accordance with the law, it will be difficult to avoid the corruption and deterioration of administrative power, and it will be difficult to win the trust, respect and cooperation of enterprises and the public, and it will not be qualified to require enterprises and other market entities to act in accordance with the law. Emphasizing that the government intervenes in the market economy towards the rule of law means that every administrative organ, administrative behavior (including abstract administrative behavior and specific administrative behavior) and administrative link in the process of government intervening in the market economy should be brought into the track of rule of law. After achieving this goal, economic administrative behavior will complete the following changes: from authoritarian administration to rule of law administration, from authoritarian administration to democratic administration, from examination and approval administration to supervision administration, from repression administration to promotion administration, from card management administration to service administration, from police administration to payment administration, from black-box administration to open administration, from inefficient administration to efficient administration, from government-oriented administration to enterprise-oriented administration. This is both an opportunity and a challenge for the government. In order to achieve this reform goal, a series of major legal measures should be introduced.