Is China Using The Opportunity of Electrifying Its Transportation Systems To Dominate 5G Market?

Why China is so intense in promoting electric cars over gasoline guzzled cars? I think there are more than a few incentives for China to promote electric cars over gasoline guzzled cars! The first incentive is so obvious that I don’t even need to talk about but I’m going to anyway.

Firstly, China has a very big pollution problem! Although China is no longer having the most polluted cities in the world since India is now taking over this top spot, nonetheless China is still seeing Chinese big, busied cities are being polluted by coal and gasoline heavy usages. The Chinese government has continually battled pollution by shutting down companies’ plants that rely on coals. Now, China pushes the pollution war ahead by promoting electric cars over gasoline cars. Meanwhile, China is heavily building more renewable energy sources such as wind farms, nuclear power plants, solar farms, and whatnot.

Secondly, China wants to control the auto industry market better since China got a bigger middle class than anyone else. This means China wants to see homegrown champions in car making and other automobile vehicles. This means China wants to have a stronger foothold in producing automobile vehicles, but the United States and Western countries are expert in making traditional automobile vehicles such as gasoline and diesel ones. Since China cannot compete directly against the West in making traditional vehicles, and so China is promoting electric vehicles to push homegrown automobile vehicle making companies to leapfrog the Western automobile companies in automobile technology through electric vehicles.

Thirdly, China knows that when there are more electric vehicles on the roads and highways, the transportation system needs to be upgraded to become more futuristic. For example, electric vehicles of the future could be driverless and so each of these vehicles needs to communicate with each other and also to the transportation system itself. This is why China is heavily pushing for 5G. With 5G technology through homegrown companies such as Huawei, China can push for electric, driverless vehicles and smart transportation systems without worrying about the feasibility of vehicle safety since 5G will speed up the data communication between the nodes/vehicles on smart, futuristic transportation systems.

I think China is using the 5G opportunity to push its transportation systems toward electric but also using the electric proliferation opportunity to fight pollution and dominating the telecom industry of tomorrow which is 5G. It’s a marriage that pushes the Chinese economy to higher ground in the coming months and years. This is why I think China is so protective of Huawei. Huawei is a leading 5G company in the world, and so I don’t think China will take it easy at all if anyone is going after this company. After all, China got a goal to meet — electrified Chinese transportation and telecom industries.

Advertisements

Can Historical Memories Shape A Future?

Can historical memories shape a future? In my opinion, historical memories could play a great role in shaping the direction of a future even though on the surface we may not see such things happen. For an example, the horrific revenge of the Soviet Union against Germany as Soviet Union troops entered Germany when the Nazi continuedly retreated as the WWII winded down. This pushed Germany to fight the Soviet Union harder and preferred to surrender to the allies.

The Soviet Union’s behavior right after WWII is a great example of why the Soviet Union lost the cold war according to Dr. Citino. If I remembered correctly he said something as such in the YouTube video above. I guess if he is right on this perspective of history, we have a lesson to learn here!

I guess the lesson of history in the context of this blog post is that a careless single victory in the present doesn’t mean much if it could cause long term pain in the future! For an example, we have multiple nuclear powers in the world as we speak, but if any one of them uses nuclear weapons carelessly, this could lead to a future that would not be very favorable for such a power.

I wonder, could Japan be closer to the United States and prevent China historic rise if the United States had won WWII against Japan without nuking Japan? In the video right after the break, Parag Khanna suggests that Japan’s heavied investments into China had contributed today stronger China!

Perhaps, I’m reading into things that simply aren’t there, but I have a feeling that Japan does want China to be quite strong to hedge against the United States. Perhaps, they fear the will of using nuclear weapons by the United States. I don’t see any reason for the United States to ever nuke Japan again. but I feel that Japan may have a long memory of it being nuked by the United States. Sure, it’s outrageous to think that Japan is unfaithful to the United States since it’s still a very close ally to the United States. Nonetheless, I’m sure there must be a thinking out there like this, and so we can’t just totally ignore the possibility!

In summary, I think a victor should not be as ruthless as Genghis Khan or the Soviet Union, because such a ruthless victor would not be able to win the respect of the surrendered power! On the surface, the surrendered power may acquiesce to the demands of the victor, but inside the surrendered power could have a feeling of long term ill will. I think today nuclear powers should not use their nuclear weapons carelessly no matter how precise and strategic their nuclear weapons could become because I think such powerful weapons could create unending hatred of one people or power to another!

Can Andrew Yang Save The Malls of America?

I don’t know much about JCPenney at all since I don’t shop there. Nonetheless, I couldn’t help but want to talk about it a bit. Recently, we have seen how Sears is struggling with its own survival, and so it is not a surprise for us to see JCPenney may fall into this same situation as Sears. Basically, if JCPenney isn’t able to modernize its own business model to fight against online giants like Amazon, JCPenney may as well eventually be just a memory.

I look at JCPenney’s stock today and I’m seeing it’s being listed around $1.28 a share. This used to be $80 stock back in 1999 and in 2006. So, the question is, what has changed?

Has JCPenney fallen victim to online giants like Amazon? I partly think so but not really 100% convinced that it is 100% the fault of online giants. If you take a look at Walmart, it doesn’t have to beat Amazon on the online platform to stay profitable! So, why Sears and JCPenney look so outdated?

I notice Kohls has done a very good job through its online platform, and so I think JCPenney could learn a thing or two from Kohls. Then again, Walmart still does rather well with its traditional bricks and mortar stores. So, perhaps it’s the combination of well managed both offline and online that could save brands like JCPenney?

Then we also have to look at a bigger picture such as why people don’t go to the mall as often as before! Sure, we can say it’s the online giants that kill off the malls! Nonetheless, the malls do have benefits such as entertainment and so forth. I notice in other countries such as in China, the malls are still very vibrant! Furthermore, Chinese do buy stuff through online platforms a lot. So, why malls in China are vibrant still?

I guess, if the malls are vibrant, stores like JCPenney and Sears could survive since they locate inside most malls! Nonetheless, as malls are closing down or getting empty, I don’t see how JCPenney and Sears and so forth could stay profitable when customers don’t even show up!

Here is the shot in the dark part! Could it be that our economy is doing poorly, people are no longer having a job for life but a job for a gig, and they shop online more — all of these factors come together to form a perfect storm which is killing off malls across America? The bigger issue is of course why are people no longer be able to have a job that they could work without worrying about being replaced by automation? Yes, automation is going to replace more people from their jobs!

Andrew Yang, 2020 presidential candidate for the Democrats, suggests that soon truck drivers, cashiers, burger flippers, lawyers, call center operators and a lot more will be replaced by AI and automation. Sure, things don’t look dramatic now since your neighbor may still have a normal job. Nonetheless, if the trucking business could save $160 some billion of dollars per year to just automate the trucks and get rid all of the truck drivers, why do you think this is not a good idea for them to do so? Perhaps, even Lyft and Uber drivers in the future will be replaced by self-driving, smart AI car too!

So, if it’s true that machines and software will eventually kill more jobs, then people will, of course, have less money to spend at shopping centers and malls. Do you think this will affect online platforms eventually? To me, it’s a common sense that the online platforms will also be affected by a poorer economy! Nonetheless, online platforms like Amazon could survive better since they got convenience on its side. For an example, frequent sales are just a few clicks away!

Sure, we can say that we like to blame the economy for our problems, but the truth is that the advance of technology and the convenience of shopping through online platforms have created a formula in which we are now seeing the decay of our economy. So, if we have a poorer economy, how can we not blame it on the problems that we see, right?

Andrew Yang suggests that through “Freedom Dividend” the government can help prepare the economy for a soft landing when the advance of AI and automation gets worse in the coming years. Of course, you can go on YouTube to watch his videos and see a more fuller explanation of his Universal Basic Income “Freedom Dividend” idea. Here, my shot in the dark is that I think even outdated stores like JCPenney could survive in a good economy! Perhaps, “Freedom Dividend” may offer people more options so they could wander their way into one of the JCPenney stores!

Andrew Yang said that “Freedom Dividend” will not be able to solve the bigger issues that the AI and automation spring forth. So, he also suggests in addition to “Freedom Dividend,” he also wants to see Medicare for all. Furthermore, he wants to abolish the usage of GDP as a measuring stick for how healthy an economy is. Instead, he wants to create a better measuring stick for the economy which measures environment sustainability, nutrition health of children, and so forth to capitalize on human well being instead of capitalizing the market caps, stock prices, and so forth. He thinks as AI and automation spring forth, the GDP number could go to the moon but more people will get fired from their jobs. Think about this, machines produce more things that will be counted toward the GDP number but the humans are not going to be able to participate in producing this number!

In summary, can Andrew Yang save the malls of America? If he can save the malls of America, this means he can save JCPenney and Sears and eventually the economy itself! Can his idea of “Freedom Dividend” provide a soft landing for the future economy where humans won’t be able to participate in producing things that can be counted as a contribution toward the GDP number? I’m very curious about all of this!

Older Men Wage War, Younger Men Fight Them?

Is it safe to assume that when a country is still young and full of energy, it prefers to take more risks and expand? Is it safe to assume that when a country is old, it prefers to play it safe? What would make a country young? In my opinion, a country is young when it got a huge amount of people that are between the age of 12 to 27. Why? These young people can and will be able to lead their country in the direction that they want since the older generations have to pass their torches eventually. Furthermore, a young country got enough young soldiers to wage a war! This will not be that important when a country decides to employ more AI robots and automation in a war, but at the presence, human soldiers are still being mainly a deployable asset for any combat situation. Human soldiers are still driving and flying war machines and drones.

A small country with a small population and not enough economic power and technological might cannot be a threat to bigger countries even though such a small country may have a huge population of young people. It would be a different story for a huge country with a huge population size because such a country can deploy young, energetic human resources to grow and expand a country’s multifacet powers. It’s even more dangerous when such a country got a really large, energetic, young population. Why? Assuming we’re not going to use automation anytime soon, and so if I’m running such a country I would think about capitalizing the power of a huge young population to grow and expand my country. For an example, I wouldn’t be so timid in launching a war against a hostile country.

I have a feeling that even when automation gets to be in the driver seat, an unrest young population of whatever country could still drive their country into a more risky proposition than otherwise. After all, logically if they’re not taking risks when they’re young, what would make them excited when they’re old? If my theory is correct, I wonder could we see a lot more wars and deaths if the world’s population is full of young people? Of course, I could be wrong in a way because older people do take risks too! What if a small group of older people can make and drive the agenda that make use of the aggressiveness features of the young population? Nonetheless, I still think the huge population of young people still is an important element in the equation for taking risks. Without the huge, energetic young population, nothing will happen even if the small group of old people wants to wage a war!

How To Fix A Corrupt Country?

I stumbled on a Quora’s question “How do you fix a corrupt country?” and so I decided to give my two cents on Quora in regards to how I think such a country could fix its problems.  Well, I will quote myself fully right after the break.  Nonetheless, you can also visit Quora for this specific answer too, but you may have to go through countless other answers that were given to this same question.

Here I quote myself:

When a country is being weakened by a weak leadership or a weak governance structure — having both would be a disaster — such a country needs to find a way to exert law and order so everyone in the country could recognize a corruptive behavior isn’t acceptable. When people are actually supportive of a measure against such corruptive behavior, the government could slowly gather strength through the recruitment of a strong leadership to carry out the enforcement of rules and regulations to curb the corruptions.

I think many forms of corruption could be very subtle too, and so corruptive agents could actually thrive in almost all governments — doesn’t matter what form a regime is actually practicing. For example, a democratic country is relatively poor, and so such a country will not be able to have strong leadership even though it got a democracy. Without a strong leadership, things tend to slip in and out between cracks, and so the corruptive agents could easily use such opportunity to do corruptive things out in the open.

In a dictatorship regime, corruptive agents in the position of power would be unchallenged since there won’t be enough checks and balances to curb such power. If a dictatorship regime got a weak leadership, the country could experience widespread corruptions that go unchecked. A good thing about the dictatorship regime is that if a country got a strong leader who actually cares for the people, such a leader could use the absolute power to weed out the corruptions really fast and effective. Basically, there are pros and cons to a different form of governance and style of a particular government.

I think to fix a corruptive country, the most important things are to find the right leadership and enhance or rebuild a governance structure so the country could thrive on rules and order. As long the rules and order are making sense and the people could feel safe, then other good things may come eventually. For example, a strong economy is a must for a leader to keep the people happy and healthy. When people are happy and healthy, they tend to do the right things and be supportive of the government. With strong support from the people, the government could exert enforcement to weed out corruptions without much of any opposition. Heck, when a government is being loved by the people, the government could take a lot more risks to achieve its aspirations.

I’m curious anyone else thinks this is the right approach to fixing a corrupt country?  Please leave a comment or two in the comment section if you agree or disagree with my suggestion.  Thanks.

Just An Obvious Thought: Advertising In The Age Of Streaming!

Streaming is proliferating nowadays, and so people are slowly switching from watching traditional TV contents to streaming contents.  In fact, whatever that is streaming can also be duplicated on TV and vice versa.  The big difference is that TV is scheduled and streaming is an on-demand kind of things.

For advertisers, streaming is something radically different than traditional TV because streamers may not accept forced advertising contents.  TV viewers may not care how long or how many advertisements get push through during a viewing experience.  The big words here are may not since TV viewing experience is about potato couching.  On the other hand, the streamers want contents quickly and sometimes prefer the shorter the content the better.  When advertisers push through advertisements in streaming contents, the streamers often get turned off.

The puzzle here is all about how to get viewers who stream to watch advertisements!  We’ve seen clever advertisements been done in movies such as marrying a brand into the content of the movie itself.  For an example, let’s create a fictitious brand of soft drink known as Blahboulous and we marry this Blahboulous can of soft drink with a character in the movie who often loves to carry the can of Blahboulous soft drink around.  This tactic could also make a brand viral since a famous actor or actress is being associated with such a brand!

The question is how to marry multiple brands into streaming contents!  Doing this too obvious would also be a turnoff.  Perhaps, there would be a better method?  I think forced advertising contents can still be done in streaming contents, but this gotta be super concise and short and the fewer the better!  Meanwhile, advertisers should marry their sponsors’ brands into the streaming contents more often.  The combination of both could elevate the advertising streams while irritating the streamers less.