A random thought while drying my hair –
Whether your hair (bangs) goes left or right is probably determined by which hand you use to hold the hairdryer in the first place / mostly of the time.
Actually, for me at least, I never change that choice of hand.
The more I use one hand, the easier to use that hand again. I feel awkward to use the other hand.
Thus that (always using the same hand) will pretty much determine how my hair parts.
Interestingly, the two things give me similar feeling.
VPN is needed when people in HK use services like ChatGPT.
另纸签 is needed when Chinese people are entering Vietnam.
The usage of VPN in HK for ChatGPT started when US doesn’t want to recognize Hong Kong as special and treat it more like mainland China.
The usage of 另纸签 started when Vietnam doesn’t want to recognize the map on a Chinese passport.
Sometimes you feel the moves are a bit “childish”, but also “smart” in managing tensions.
Recently, 犒赏经济 has become a hot topic in China. The related articles try to show resilience in consumption and suggest a way to lift consumption.
While I agree with the necessity of this concept, as consumption in China needs to upgrade to “quality consumption” as some may say, I think 犒赏经济 is also trying to avoid some other key issues.
1/ key examples of 犒赏经济 are also lipstick effect.
Usually these articles argue that the rise in blind box toy sale like Popmart is a form of 犒赏经济.
However, if you think about it, Popmart toy is also like high-end brand lipsticks – people are replacing large item luxury purchases (handbags etc.) with smaller items ($20).
The desire to buy luxury products still exist during a bad economy, but people choose to buy stuff that have less impact on their financials.
One common use case of Popmart toy is to attach it to luxury handbags. Adding the “attachment” makes people feel that the handbag is “new” , thus somehow replacing the need to buy a new one.
Other examples of 犒赏经济 can also be lipstick effect.
Buying a nice dessert on the way back home? That’s a replacement for a much more expensive dinner out.
2/ 犒赏经济 tolerates other negative effects on overall consumption like stress or off-times.
Some part of the 犒赏经济 is not to celebrate in my opinion.
The mental stress is usually mentioned as a cause of rise in 犒赏经济, but is that a good thing? Are economists going to argue that in order to drive 犒赏经济, more people need to feel the stress?
Plus, these articles avoided discussions of long working hours and short holidays.
Long working hours is limiting dinner consumption and other 夜间经济.
In most companies in China, young people only get 5 days of annual leave per years. In additional, many companies will ask why you take a leave, and there is no such thing as getting paid for unused leaves. I bet many European people would say that like hundreds of years ago.
In 1936, France introduced law for 2 weeks of paid leave for all workers. This is on top of 9 days of national holiday at that time. The 2 weeks was further raised to 3 weeks in 1956, to 4 weeks in 1969, and to 5 weeks in 1982.
Wonder why concert is more popular than traveling? Because concert is usually in the city or a weekend trip that doesn’t involve taking a leave.
Let me just stop here.
Overall there are huge potentials in consumption in China I believe, and the quality consumption is the way to go. But some limiting factors need to be addressed first.
If the majority of a game’s participants are keen to gamble, they may push the risk/reward of the game to a negative territory.
If this game is the stock market, you may observe the valuation as not attractive at all.
What’s worse, as a whole, these participants collectively are more likely to lose in the long run!
The game designer or host must be very happy though.
Gambling is all over the world, but why Asians are more vulnerable to gambling?
Probably due to the slim chance of a normal enjoyable life.
It’s weird to me that the BMW 5 Series, Audi A6, and Benz E Series are priced much cheaper than their foreign original version.
The gap can be 1/3 – BMW 5 Series will cost ~$60k (maybe 8% dealer discount) vs slightly above $40k in China.
They don’t look exactly the same, but the China version will be even “longer” / “larger”.
This is weird again as I would assume bigger cars cost more – e.g. BMW 5 Series is bigger than BMW 3 Series.
I can only assume that the components used in China version are different from the original version, thus cost is lower.
But still, it’s hard to imagine a good things is priced lower in China vs abroad.
Typically, a “real good thing” can be priced higher in China due to large population base and thus is short in supply.
Update
China’s BMW 525Li is weaker than German BMW 520i.
Audi’s and Benz’s is similar performance across China and German.
Technology company isn’t necessarily asset-light.
GE was also a leading “technology” company in its days.
A technology company has no boundary.
It’s a group of brightest minds that bind together and shine wherever they sees darkness.
The TAM expansion is what makes “technology” companies amazing investments.
Tesla is not asset light.
Tesla is a technology company that is expanding its TAM.
Engineers that can only make cars make a company a car company. But if these engineers can do all sorts of designs and create new stuff, they make a tech company.
1/ Trump has a family business to grow.
The world can’t go too chaotic.
(Rich) people can’t hate the Trump brand.
2/ Trump wins by tough negotiations.
This I am not sure. But if two sides are not talking, how could negotiation happen?
If negotiation is not happening… that’s where Trump does the best.
However, if people all believes it’s only negotiation… then it becomes tougher for Trump to gain in negotiation.
That’s why I am not sure.
AI revolution leads computation evolve from CPU to GPU, or from generalized to specialized.
Humanoid robots is exactly the opposite – they are going from single task to multi-tasks, or from specialized to generalized.
Why not bond risk premium?
Bonds typically have fixed payments but inflation is uncertain. One dollar 10 years from now is very hard to value.
Instead, you can trust credible companies more. They shall hold their position in the economy and take their fair share.
Isn’t that more “certain” in some way?
Thus, why we have equity risk premium.. there should bond risk premium over high quality companies.
Some people will be priced out if tariff significantly increases drug price.
That to some extent is like “killing” those people.
Of course, prices on drugs shall increase over time for different reasons.
Would you argue that if a drugmaker raises price, it’s “killing” people?
It will be interesting then.. as pharmaceutical companies are saving and killing people at the same time. They are still saving people net net.
For investors in pharma, if they expect higher profits, are they also killing people as companies need to raise price? But if you invest in drugs, you should be saving people right?
What a humanitarian cap on the industry!