Zhang Kun Asked a Good Question

In his first-quarter report, Zhang Kun posed a soul-searching question: "Do we still believe that every generation of Chinese people will live better than the previous one?"

Actually, I believe Zhang Kun, with his firm holding stance, definitely has a positive answer to this question. However, he didn't answer another question himself: "Living better is a subjective feeling; if every Chinese person lives better than the previous generation, will this necessarily be reflected in monetization?"

My parents could only afford one bottle of Moutai at 1499 yuan a year, while I can drink 20 bottles of RIO a year. My parents' annual disposable income was 30,000 yuan, so that one bottle of Moutai accounted for 5% of their annual disposable income. My income is 300,000 yuan, and alcohol accounts for only 0.1% of my annual disposable income. In this scenario, who lives better?

Is there a possibility that life is indeed better, but the monetized measurement shows a smaller number? This might be a persistent misconception in our thinking: monetized measurement.

I admit that in the field of economics, it is impossible to do without monetized measurement, because many categories are completely incomparable. If they are incomparable, they cannot be categorized, statistically aggregated, and accounted for, making many judgments and decisions impossible. However, purely relying on monetized measurement doesn't work either, because often it just forcibly groups things together for the sake of "comparability," which is ultimately detached from the underlying logic: and this detachment can cause problems under specific circumstances.

When evaluating consumption growth, is monetization the only path we can use? In the past, I bought one computer for 10,000 yuan every three years; now I buy one computer for 3,000 yuan every year, totaling only 9,000 yuan over three years. So, has my consumption increased or not? Previously, a 10,000 yuan computer made 3,000 yuan for the enterprise, which is 1,000 yuan per year; now, an enterprise makes 300 yuan per computer, which is 300 yuan per year. Calculated in monetary terms, my consumption has undoubtedly decreased, but is that really the case?

Would it be more appropriate to evaluate consumption using per capita energy possession and consumption, as it better aligns with people's actual physical experience? However, due to the rapid improvement in power generation and energy storage capabilities, the price per unit of energy is continuously decreasing. Whether consumption, when monetized, has actually improved becomes hard to say.

Let's break it down according to the four basic needs of clothing, food, housing, and transportation:

In terms of clothing, except for a few models and influencers who constantly need to change outfits (in the future, even this probably won't be necessary, as AI can just digitally change clothes for you), people nowadays don't go out to see people as much. Naturally, per capita clothing possession can't go up (the need for warmth is basically non-existent; if you're at home, just wrapping yourself in a blanket will do).

In terms of food, modern people eat too well. As long as you don't plan on continuing to become a super obese person, there is an upper limit to per capita energy possession.

In terms of housing, once per capita living space reaches a certain level, it can't go up anymore. No matter how rich you are, are you going to switch rooms in the middle of the night to sleep? Not to mention that with housing prices the way they are now, investment demand is also suppressed.

The only aspect left to talk about is transportation, that is, the physical travel radius of a person. Previously, with only the slow green-skinned trains, traveling 500 kilometers would exhaust you to death. Now, with high-speed rail, traveling 2,000 kilometers is totally doable; with airplanes, going 5,000 kilometers is also possible... But for ordinary people, if "spiritual travel" is an option—like using VR or short videos to follow others and look around—then physical travel can be reduced even further...

When clothing, food, housing, and transportation are all approaching the ceiling of energy demand, and the 24 hours of the day are almost completely filled, any new need will naturally crowd out an old one. Moreover, in most cases, the new need is more cost-effective and consumes less energy. For example, "traveling with the Elder" only requires one person (me) to consume energy; the others just need a phone, electricity, and a network to watch, listen to the commentary, and that's it. If it were the past and people traveled physically, these 3,000 audience members would mean 3,000 times the energy consumption...

Following this logical deduction, only interstellar travel and innovative drugs are worth buying. Interstellar travel expands the breadth of life, while innovative drugs extend the length of life. Only with these two preconditions can consumption rise; otherwise, human consumption might already be locked in by the total energy consumption dictated by the limits of a 24-hour lifespan and physical travel distance.

In short: if we look at the standard of per capita energy possession and consumption, how far are we from the ceiling? If we look at the price per unit of energy generated, how much room is left for the increase of per capita consumption level measured in currency? If clothing, food, housing, and transportation have all hit the ceiling, what remains are only spiritual needs, and even then, it requires an increase in "demand density" within the constraint of 24 hours of effective time. What if the monetized measurement of "demand density" also drops? For instance, going from an offline demand of 200 per hour to an online demand of 5 per hour...

This is perhaps the issue truly worth our consideration and worry.

That's basically all I wanted to say today, but looking at it, it's still a bit short. Being too short isn't good for a man, so I'll casually touch upon another topic:

I saw a news story saying that a student at a certain university was bitten by a stray dog and went to question the school about why they don't manage the stray dogs. Coincidentally, this is the same school that fired a security guard two years ago for culling stray cats and dogs.

The magical part is that the voices demanding the school to care for small animals and not arbitrarily cull stray cats and dogs, and the voices questioning why the school doesn't manage stray cats and dogs causing students to be bitten, exist simultaneously. You can't cull stray cats and dogs, so naturally there will be more of them, and you also demand that they don't bite people—so what's the solution? Make these cats and dogs sit in classrooms and find someone to teach them moral and behavioral lessons?

That these two voices can exist simultaneously and both gain considerable support reflects a cognitive flaw in many of the younger generation: they only possess short-chain thinking ability. They can only solve the result of "If A, then A1," but lack the multi-layer reasoning ability to deduce what kind of An A1 will lead to down the line.

For example, think about it again: cheap products, good employee benefits, and high shareholder profits with a high stock price—this is essentially an impossible triangle. But some self-media outlets ignore this impossible triangle: as consumers, they demand that companies sell things cheaply; when speaking of employee benefits, they demand excellent perks; and finally, as stock investors, they demand high profits and high stock prices from shareholders.

If you were a listed company CEO, I'd ask you how to satisfy all three at the same time? According to a certain classmate: it seems the only way left is to rob aliens.

This is why playing Go can now be replaced by "dogs" (AI), but I feel that entertainment activities like playing chess and cards should still be kept. At least as a game for mental training, it can very effectively exercise long-chain thinking patterns: after I make a move, my opponent will also make a move, and their move will definitely be the one most beneficial to them, not to me. How should I respond with my next move? And so on...

Just as good investors can anticipate the market's anticipation, good chess players can calculate a dozen moves ahead. But many people's thought processes are not like this; they only have the simplistic thinking pattern of "I call check, he ignores it, and then I capture his piece." But why on earth would he ignore it after you call check?! When playing chess, you can easily spot such a lousy player, but in real life, can you easily spot such "lousy people"?

When normal people encounter a situation where they can't win, they try hard to memorize established patterns, play more games, and improve their chess skills. However, there are also many "giant infant" solutions: I call check, and you actually try to run? No way! If you run, I'll flip the chessboard! As a result, after the opponent picks up the chessboard and smashes it in their own face, they are left dumbfounded.

(The above story can be referenced to the past of the Han Dynasty's Chess Saint, Emperor Jing of Han, Liu Qi: The Prince of Wu ran his mouth at Liu Qi during a chess game, and Liu Qi didn't bother talking; he just picked up the chessboard and bludgeoned the opponent to death on the spot.)

Therefore, when you set rules and make others your opponents, you'd better have the ability to flip the table, swing the chessboard, and win. Otherwise, I'll give you a suggestion: you can jointly turn playing chess into a form of entertainment, not caring about winning or losing on the board, and work together to make the pie bigger outside the chessboard. This is my favorite business model and way of conducting oneself.

But obviously, many extreme "X" rights activists only want to divide the pie and don't want to bake it. Up to this point, I haven't even said that they are only good at dividing the pie, because if you only want power without bearing any obligations, no one will even come to your chessboard. Zero multiplied by anything is zero; this doesn't even qualify as being "good" at dividing the pie, because even telecom scammers at least give you a little sweetener.

This kind of thinking wouldn't even make for a good employee in Northern Myanmar; anyone who believes it is a fool.

This article is from the WeChat public account: Tang Seng's Ramblings, Author: Tang Er Seng