My friend told you a story about a mouse falling into a rice jar. After reading it, you will know the outline of the story: a mouse found a jar of rice, so he jumped in to eat it every day, and then jumped out to go home after eating. In this way, day after day, finally one day the mouse found that the jar mouth was too high to jump out. After eating the last grain of rice in the jar, the mouse starved to death! Revelation 1: Given a given resource (a can of rice), there is no substitute. As consumers, mice should not worry about the day when rice will be used up in a short time, let alone other mice competing with it for rice. Every day is always a muddled life, and life is very leisurely. In western economics, we always divide the market structure into perfect competition market, monopoly competition market, monopoly market and oligopoly market according to the behavior of manufacturers. I guess, why can't we divide the market according to the behavior of families, that is, consumers? For example, we take this case as an analysis. When the mouse is only one, it has a one-to-one relationship with the rice jar. Is this the market? Suppose there is another mouse on the market, the effect will be different. When there are two mice, they will compete for a jar of rice at the same time, they will compete for limited resources, or cooperate with each other to maximize their interests. At this time, can this be regarded as a market? Imagine if there were more mice, and they participated in the distribution of rice resources, what kind of agreement would these mice reach to share? From the perspective of welfare economics, the welfare of each mouse will decrease, but the welfare of the whole mouse group will increase. Can you divide the market from the perspective of mouse? When there is a one-to-one correspondence, the market has not yet formed, which is called non-market structure; When the relationship is many-to-one, it can be divided into several different situations. Can it be re-divided with reference to the judgment standard of monopoly market or oligopoly market? Our above assumption is that the supply of rice is certain, and there is no infinite supply, that is, there is no elasticity. If the number of rice tanks increases with the increase of mice, several different situations of market structure mentioned at the beginning of this paper will form and evolve continuously. Enlightenment 2: Through the above analysis, we can also get a simple truth, that is, how to use it to achieve optimal allocation under the condition of limited resource supply. Just like the non-renewable resources now, once they are consumed by us, there will be no more supply. Without any constraints, it can be developed endlessly, similar to predatory development. In the long run, it is difficult to repay the immediate benefits with future efforts. At present, we still adopt extensive economic growth mode at the expense of the environment. Imagine that one day humans may lose their resistance unconsciously like mice and dig their own graves. Revelation 3: The mouse will die because the jar is too high for it to jump out. If it comes up with a way to escape while eating, such as breaking the rice jar (which seems impossible), then the mouse will not be trapped in the rice jar, and it will live more smartly. Know how to protect yourself, even if you eat it, it will be free, and if you take it, it will be free. And suppose that rice is not put in a jar, but in a rice bag, will the mouse die? The mouse will not die because there is no high "wall" around it, so it will leave after eating. Imagine the current anti-corruption struggle, and the scene is similar to this. It was raining before the incident. Once the problem is found out, it will have a great impact on the parties. The greedy character determines that the mouse will eventually have a miserable life. We can compare the difference between the jar and the bag as two different systems, which will produce diametrically opposite results. One is to die, the other is to live more smartly! Answer finished, thank you!