Category: lenS & thoughtS

It’s difficult to understand each regulation. But I think there is a better, more fundamental and actually easier way – through the lens of justice.

However, there seems to be a difference between what China focuses on vs. the West when it comes to justice. In short, I feel that China weighs a fair outcome over procedural justice.

This difference could partially be explained by the fact that China doesn’t always operate based on exact rules. It could be hard to develop a robust law system in a short period of time and in an evolving society. In fact, rules can be modified to suit the needs, which is the opposite of mainstream western belief. 

When big global companies may get away with perfectly executed deals, Chinese companies may face the consequences afterwards (even before regulation is in place). After all, trouble may come in various forms.

That being said, justice is important. A company may build goodwill to offset any negative consequences it may create, especially formalized in the future. For example, Tencent’ gaming business is lucrative and from time to time is seen to have negative impacts on teenagers. Although Tencent could be procedurally perfect and compliant, it may not be enough. I believe it’s the WeChat etc. that brings a good amount of positive progresses that provide a cushion. Therefore, as those balanced out, it’s not injustice for Tencent to make such a large sum of money. 

Cells to tissues are like individuals to communities.

All those tissues form different organs and a body – just like communities (corporations, institutions, all sorts of organizations, etc.) fulfilling different functions and creating a society.

Cells age. So do we. Cells can be renewed while performing the same duty. It’s just like human beings reproducing and dying.

Cells evolve, so we are  more capable than the creatures hundreds of millions of years ago. People learn, so civilizations grow and build on their own.

Internet & tech companies are facing increasing pressure from regulators across the globe.

Moat is not even a good word now – as it may imply reduced competition. Lawful practices don’t mean they won’t attract criticism.

What’s a better strategy?

1/ Being socially responsible for the future by investing in R&D seems to be a good choice. Ali Cloud is even more important to Alibaba now than its e-commerce business.

2/ Being socially responsible for the current by providing services for free and improving them overtime, e.g. Tencent’s chat apps. Although sometimes”free” is part of the business model, it does create value for users.

3/ Being socially responsible for the unmet demands. It seems to me that ByteDance’s education business is falling into this category.

It’s fair to say that relationship-based economy is a bit like barter-based economy, where a “double confidence of wants” is usually needed.

It is less efficient, compared with the modern economy where a mutually agreed intermediary “currency” is used.

And relationship-based transactions can often span a very long time frame – any immediate “payment” is not required. Although this can be see as a “credit”, usually it can not be used to “pay” for other things. Thus, one person is actually “maintaining” many accounts with people around him/her, where bilateral relationships are recorded.

One reason that relationship-based transactions have been popular in Asia cultures might due to the taxes.

In ancient times, when taxes could be high and unpredictable, relationship-based transactions are not obvious to others outside the transaction.

Technically speaking, it’s probably not a “transaction” under modern definition. It’s just “I help someone and he/she might help me some day”.