The reform of government functions is not an armchair strategist, it involves not only the orientation of functions and the needs of society, but also the status income of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people from top to bottom. It's not as simple as you say. For example, the National Development and Reform Commission claims that "Little the State Council" has enormous functions, not just economic functions. Of course, there is a tendency to be vague now, but I don't think it can be abolished or merged in a short period of three to five years. However, some of them are better separated, just like the Federal Reserve and the Ministry of Finance in the United States, so that the functions of money can be played more freely without too many constraints. Although the Ministry system is the general trend, decentralization also has advantages. Although there are few ministries and commissions in the United States, there are thousands of offices directly under the President. Why should we consider it? It is because the functions of the directly affiliated institutions are simpler and clearer, the operational command is more flexible, and the effect of mutual supervision and monitoring is clear. Of course, on the other hand, it will inevitably increase internal friction, so the best system is to maximize efficiency and minimize loss. Moreover, this system is constantly changing with development, and there is no forever excellent system. I think it may be more appropriate to merge the Ministry of Finance with the General Administration of Customs of the People's Republic of China and State Taxation Administration of The People's Republic of China. Perhaps the merger of the Ministry of Commerce and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce is more urgent. Of course, things have to come one by one. It involves the interests of hundreds of thousands of people from the country to provinces, cities and counties. If it is not done well, there will be considerable resistance. After all, if you were a pampered civil servant, wouldn't you?