I’ve never thought about how much history has already been set from the moment your ancestors settled down in a land. Of course, it seems absurd for the future to already be determined by one action, but ultimately, it builds up to the butterfly effect. The butterfly effect is known for how a small initial change in action can lead to an unprecedented, myriad number of differences in the future. As I come to make my point, all these historical events — slavery, colonization, wars, and the plague — contribute to present-day economic development. I claim that economic growth is indirectly affected by geography. Growth always starts from somewhere. Families need to start from a loving couple, and from then on, they give birth to generations of livelihood. From generation to generation, families pass down values and norms, such as attitudes toward work, morals, and cultural practices. Attitudes toward work are two-sided. You either fall for speculation and propaganda, feeding into that adrenaline-laced gamble rather than making a calculated move, or you think smartly and sensibly about business. This is where most people would say they would “go all in” or make a “calculated gamble.” These two types of attitudes, passed down across generations, are called cultural transmission. Cultural transmission is what shapes economic behavior and macroeconomics today. Another contributing factor is human capital. Human investments — or lack thereof — in education or health have intergenerational consequences for a country's future. Additionally, in a geographical sense, the historical use of land and resources impacts current land productivity and economic patterns. Different ways of interacting with geography act as natural experiments, influenced by instrumental variables; all of this contributes to historical data reconstruction. Geography is the starting point for everything: climate, soil quality, and natural resources all shape what societies can do historically. For example, fertile land is easier to farm, so there’s more food for larger populations to grow. Geography also determined what kind of history would take place there. Regions with more valuable resources often attracted colonizers, but the type of colonizers (settlers or extractive) depended on the climate and disease environment. The type of colonizers mattered more than being colonized. Settler colonies  built new societies for colonists to live in long-term, as the name suggests. These colonies usually had a large number of Europeans, and the institutions they built tended to strengthen economies over time. They designed them to benefit the population living there, with strong property rights, representative governments or local councils, schools, infrastructure, and courts. In the long term, inclusive institutions often persisted after independence and supported economic growth. On the other hand, extractive colonies  focused on taking as much wealth as possible back to the colonizing country. They usually had administrators, soldiers, merchants, and only a few long-term settlers. The institutions they built were designed to benefit outsiders, and systems often didn’t change after independence, which held back development. Extractive systems relied on controlling the local population, heavy taxation or forced labor, and weak property rights for locals. Over time, these fragile institutions persisted, leading to corruption, inequality, and poor governance. Coastal access also affected trade patterns, as societies near good harbors became involved in global trade earlier, which could bring prosperity or exploitation. Moreover, geography indirectly affects today’s economy by shaping institutions. In tropical areas with higher disease risk, European settlers often avoided large settlements and created extractive colony systems to send resources home. In temperate, healthier climates, Europeans were more likely to settle and build schools, legal systems, and infrastructure. These differences meant some societies had more rules, systems, and organizations in the past than others. Extractive systems tended to persist and negatively influence the present day. One example is the Transatlantic Slave Trade. While it wasn’t tied to one specific colony, it was part of a larger extractive system: the “triangular trade.” Africans were taken from Africa and forced into plantations in the Americas to enrich Europeans. Most regions heavily affected by the slave trade tend to be poorer today, and many have developed deep mistrust due to broken social structures. Overall, geography is not destiny, but it sets the stage for history, institutions, and culture to unfold. Historical events like colonization, slavery, and war created ripple effects that shaped institutions and economic outcomes in the present day. Families pass down values, work attitudes, and norms that influence financial behavior and macroeconomic systems today. Inclusive institutions built in settler colonies often supported long-term growth, while extractive colonies left behind legacies of inequality and corruption, as they were already set up for failure from the start. Slight differences in geography — such as climate, disease environment, or access to coastlines — created massive long-term differences in the types of colonies built and in economic development, fueling the butterfly effect. The current global economic landscape isn’t random; it’s the product of centuries of human choices shaped by geography, history, and culture.

Since mid-2022, the real competition between Tesla and Chinese car companies has intensified, notably when BYD (a Chinese electric car company) executive Lian Yubo was asked to compare the two’s technology. Mr. Yubo’s response was, “Tesla is a very successful company, no matter what. BYD respects Tesla, and we admire Tesla.” Tesla’s fleeting lead is expected to be narrowed within 3 years, and it is fighting to be ahead of the world’s largest car market. Tesla’s sales were declining in many other countries, and the company faced ongoing regulatory challenges in manufacturing new AI self-driving vehicles. Recently, Tesla’s sales have been falling even more dramatically than ever due to the US politics and tariffs Elon Musk is facing in early 2025. There was a time when the idea that BYD could even compete with Tesla seemed crazy. However, compared to the present day, with these two being the top 2 electric vehicle manufacturers in the world, it’s a head-to-head US-Chinese technological competition. Although Tesla still has the advantage over “owning EVs” and having the best “software-defined software”, China has a clear advantage in being able to manufacture its EVs cheaply. China’s adaptation and progress speed is impeccable, with the release of “God’s Eye,” an advanced driving-assistance system for fully autonomous vehicles. Not even a month later, BYD released a new battery charging system that’s capable of charging vehicles in only 5 minutes. With BYD’s technological spark and increasing competition, legacy carmakers are starting to worry about who will ultimately win. Up to the point where they partnered with China's rivals to learn how to build vehicles that are manufactured faster, cheaper, and of better quality. Many say that Musk “took his eye off the ball” and let BYD “catch up” by investing in their technology long-term. However, their secret will shock you, as the Chinese say that “Elon Musk is [their] leader”. They claim that they’re not copying Musk’s technology, but simply “improving it very quickly”. Chinese automakers aren’t just playing catch-up anymore — they’re rewriting the playbook. Take BYD, for example. According to Caresoft, they’ve cooked up nearly 100 clever cost-cutting hacks for everything from car parts to raw materials. If Tesla borrowed a few pages from BYD’s playbook, it could shave anywhere between $350 and $885 off the cost of each car. And here’s the plot twist — BYD could return the favor. By borrowing a few of Tesla’s tricks in brake systems and heat-exchanger equipment, they could save up to $1,860 per vehicle. Who says rivalry can’t be a two-way street?

When you think of Japan, there’s an 8 out of 10 chance that you automatically think about their Japanese cuisine: sushi, sashimi, anburi, and their different types of don. When it comes to food, Japan and rice are inseparable, iconic, and absolutely essential, much like Chanel and their pearls — two entities that go together like hand and glove. Now, imagine a world where Japan — the land of rice balls and rituals — starts running low on rice. Shocking? It’s not a hypothetical anymore. It’s happening and only getting worse, starting from late 2023 due to a smaller and poorer-quality harvest that fall. Demand for the grain is exceeding its supply, prices are skyrocketing, and the country is taking rare steps to turn to imports and its emergency stockpile. This political turmoil is what is causing Japanese restaurants to stop offering free rice refills, as Japanese tourists are buying rice from other Asian countries, and bags of rice in grocery stores are disappearing; many stores are limiting each customer to one bag. Inflation has caused the cost of an 11-pound rice bag to average about $30, including tax, which is more than double the price during the same period last year (Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture). The situation worsens for Japan, as an increase in rice imports could leave agricultural farmers vulnerable to competition. In early February of this year, rice imports coming from private companies exceeded 551 tons — this exceeds the fiscal volume in 2023, according to the country’s Ministry of Agriculture. On the contrary, South Korea’s national agriculture cooperative confirmed earlier in the last week of April that they planned to export 24 tons of rice to Japan, “the largest shipment in the last 25 years” (Chie Tanaka and Michelle Ye Hee Lee, The Washington Post ). These imports account for only a small percentage of the nationwide rice consumption, which is estimated at 7.8 million tons. Over the past few years, there has been a significant increase in tourists from all over the world, many of whom were unable to enter in previous years due to COVID-19, driving up nationwide rice consumption numbers. Not only have tourists worsened the nationwide rice consumption numbers, but also there was a time, in late August last year, when the government issued a 7.1 magnitude earthquake warning. It was the first warning for a “megaquake,” and this panicked civilians into panic-purchasing rice in preparation for this natural disaster. Seeing how easy it is for demand and supply imbalance to spike, the government has been trying, in recent years, to encourage farmers to move away from rice crops by subsidizing them to switch to other diverse crops, as they noticed a pattern that by making demand and supply tight, hiking prices and shortages were inevitable (Nobuhiro Suzuki, a professor of agricultural economics at Tokyo University). He elaborates on this point by saying, “The real root of the issue lies in what I’d call a policy failure — cutting production too much and leaving farmers unable or unwilling to grow rice, without doing anything about it… That’s why it escalated into such a major problem.” “‘Japan’s strategy has always been to produce the amount that meets the demand,’” said a Ministry of Agriculture spokesman, entailing that there is no official move to increase domestic production despite the politically sensitive shortage. Many times, the government says in response that “the rice [goes] ‘missing’ along the supply chain stems largely from distributors hoarding rice as a speculative measure.” Without any action being taken, wholesale market prices are likely to worsen from here, and this is only going to restrain retailers further. Owner Kazuo Kurihara, 86, said he used to purchase rice directly from farmers, but his contract ran out, so he can no longer buy from them. Then, he has to resort to buying from wholesalers, who said that their prices keep on going up day by day. In response to this, Eto, the agriculture minister, said, “Even though we are releasing rice from government stockpiles, retail prices are not falling.” Residents are growing frustrated, as one, Naoko Nakayama, a 46-year-old mother of one who was shopping at a Tokyo grocery store this week, said she would be willing to accept the rising prices if it meant that farmers could get higher pay. Still, she feels frustrated that policymakers have no clear solution on how to address the shortage for customers or help farmers. On the other hand, in the near future, it appears that Japan has been considering expanding imports from the United States and reducing its tariffs on rice imports as part of the negotiations regarding Donald Trump’s tariffs. I’m hoping to see what comes next and what Japan will do long-term because this all seems to be a short-term solution right now.

Image from Nikkei Asia Mumbai, India , the city that never sleeps and continues to grow in terms of economy and population. With a growing population of 21 million and counting, its  metropolitan population exceeds that of Los Angeles and New York City combined. On top of Mumbai’s vast population, the pet industry is booming in India, particularly among those with deeper pockets than others. The boom began during the COVID-19 pandemic, when people had more time to spend with their pets — and that’s when animals became the ideal companions, offering the emotional support many were seeking, said Redseer analyst Amitabh Kumar. Image from the Business Research Company To add to the pet industry’s boom, it is estimated to expand from $3.6 billion in fiscal 2023 to between $7 to $7.5 billion in fiscal 2027, local consulting firm Redseer projects. This estimate is based on the predicted increase in spending on food, grooming services, and animal healthcare, which account  for about 80% of total expenditures. Pet-related investments, driven by an increase in additional pet healthcare fintechs, have reached an estimated $180 billion from fiscal 2019 to 2023. As more people become involved in animal healthcare and services, I have observed a trend of increasing animal fintech startups. The reason is that, with most pets being adopted, rescued, or bought during the COVID-19 pandemic, around this time, people’s pets would already be around the age of 4–5. If you’re not a pet owner, you would have to multiply your pet’s age by 7 to compare their age to human years. So you could probably guess that being 4–5 years old for a pet is quite old already. By this time, a dog could show early signs of joint issues, and a cat’s metabolism would  start to slow at this age. This is what comes with an increase in vet visits over the next few years, as people’s pets begin to age from the COVID-19 pet boom. "The availability of specialized services such as pet insurance, grooming, and boarding, alongside improved pet care products like specialized food and health care, has made it easier for pet owners to provide for their pets, driving adoption," Kumar said. At this time, I would suggest that it would be a good opportunity to invest in or acquire a private equity stake in these pet healthcare businesses, starting now.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday holds up a copy of President Donald Trump's letter to Japan announcing 25 percent tariffs. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images) I couldn’t help but wonder... When did trade policy start feeling like a reality TV cliffhanger? One minute it’s diplomacy, the next it’s tariffs, and Japan and South Korea are suddenly the main characters in Trump’s latest plot twist. The last time we discussed tariffs on this blog was in May of this year, but yet again, Trump seems to be seeking to stir up drama to get the most out of his trading partners. Like Heo Yoon, the chairman of South Korea’s National Trade Policy Advisory Council and an economics professor at the Sogang University Graduate School of International Studies, said, “Trump weaponized his unpredictability, but now he’s quite predictable about his unpredictability.” Image from Franck Robichon/EPA/Shutterstock This quote stuck with me because I couldn’t help but wonder… when your biggest allies are holding the shield for you, why would you light the fire and stab them in the back? As Trump threatens another wave of tariffs on Japan and South Korea, it feels less like foreign policy and more like self-sabotage in stilettos. This so-called “unpredictability” used to be “strategic ambiguity,” but now it seems more like strategic stupidity dressed up in a red tie. It’s not 4D chess. It’s just checkers… played badly. Why would you play with fire with one of your biggest allies that is quite literally helping you fight dependence on China? And it doesn’t stop there; not only does he come with threats, but he also presents political demands to many other countries. But the shade is crazy, as Japan and South Korea were the first two recipients of these letters. Trump demands that his demands be met or negotiations be conducted on his terms by August 1st; otherwise, he will impose the promised tariffs on all Asian countries. If not — they would face a 25 percent tariff rate — up one percentage point for Japan, and the same rate for South Korea as the levies announced in April. In response, Itsunori Onodera, policy chief for Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party, said, “The content is entirely unacceptable… To notify a key ally with nothing more than a single letter is extremely disrespectful, and I feel a strong sense of indignation.” On top of this, Donald Trump seems to dismiss their feelings and went on at a press conference on July 7th, starting to call both South Korea and Japan “spoiled,” and that they have always been getting their needs met for the past few decades. All this makes Japan question, “‘Is this how you treat the allies?’ is the question we have,” said Tokuko Shironitta, Japan country director at the Asia Group, a consultancy. I believe that bringing these threats to the table at this time is somewhat insensitive, given the political constraints that Tokyo and Seoul are currently facing. This contributes to most of the reasons why negotiations between the two nations have been moving more slowly than the U.S. had demanded. Japan’s July 20 upper house election could threaten Ishiba’s standing as the prime minister, which limits his ability to forge deals on politically sensitive issues, such as the rice shortage . Meanwhile, a new administration is just starting to find its footing after a whirlwind presidential campaign in April and May, right as trade talks were getting underway. The three-week extension came as a relief for the president, as he acknowledged last week that it would be “difficult” for Seoul to decide by Aug. 1. Heo acknowledges Trump’s move as a way to make an example out of them — the United States’ two Asian allies — to pressure other countries, despite the two capitals being critical points to the U.S.’s efforts to decrease dependence on China. Image from Tempo.co English On the other hand, Indonesia seems to be playing the overachiever in the group project — showing up early, doing the work, and still getting ghosted. “It’s a surprise,” said Airlangga Hartarto, Indonesia’s chief trade negotiator, as he headed to Washington to meet with U.S. officials. And by surprise, he didn’t mean a pleasant one. Indonesia had bent over backward to play nice — offering to slash tariffs on American goods to nearly zero and even committing to buy $34 billion worth of U.S. products, from Boeing aircraft to soybeans. Just this week, they were in talks with ExxonMobil and American farmers, trying to seal deals faster than you can say "bilateral cooperation." But instead of a thank-you, they got silence. “We have been moving 180 degrees, and the U.S. is not moving at all. Zero,” Hartarto said. “There were a lot of things we had already discussed in detail.” When allies come to the table with open wallets and empty hands, why is the U.S. suddenly playing hard to get?

I think we have all been aware and have been watching from our screens helplessly, as all of these innocent lives are being lost. For those who aren’t caught up, since late 2024, with the assassinations of Iran’s top military leaders, the murder of dozens of citizens and scientists, and with hundreds more injured, the tensions have risen between the two countries: Israel and Iran. With an obvious devastating blow to Iran’s nuclear and military command, Iran has the obvious right to react back and declared Iran’s October 2024 missile barrage (with around 200 missiles), which is also called Operation True Promise II . Image from Stimson The war was still prevalent for a while, but no new news came until the recent date, 13th June 2025. The following morning, it seemed it would be the darkest time for Iran since they were being closed in from all directions. On top of that, the United States had just declared that they were officially “in” with working with Israel in the war. Following this news, Israel had sent a devastating military strike (with 400 missiles and hundreds of drones), coded as Operation Rising Lion , that obliterated Iran’s most critical nuclear facilities in minutes. Not expecting to be quiet, Iran had fired back with their own 100 aerial drones launched directly into Israel’s cutting territory. However, Israel’s cutting-edge defense military system had saved them from any significant damage, but this wasn’t the end. And with that, President Trump had made a bold move and applauded Israel’s strike, and stated that the United States would take further action if Iran threatened them in any way. Hilariously, within hours, Iran had declared a full-scale military escalation on the US’s bases across the Middle East. Not only did this cause an upset amongst Donald Trump and the US, but also the whole world. It had initiated a global panic, which had caused markets to react in fear—oil prices skyrocketed by 12% overnight, crypto took a plunge, stock markets took a nosedive, $220 billion was lost overnight, and the talk of WW3 is no longer a fantasy. I couldn’t help but wonder… was this war just a global version of a teenage friend group falling apart? It always starts with two friends—Israel and Iran—fighting. Everyone else pretends to stay neutral, not wanting to get in the middle of the drama. But secretly, they're picking sides, already whispering behind each other's backs about whose side they’re on. Eventually, one friend—say, the United States—openly picks a side. And just like that, the entire balance tips. The friend being ganged up on lashes out louder, harder, and more chaotically. The rest of the group? Caught between loyalty and self-preservation, all desperately trying to keep the peace while watching it unravel in real time. It may even be a global order that may never be the same again. Image from ABC News Everybody is praying for peace, and everybody, including countries like China, Russia, and European allies, is urging a de-escalation of the situation. Despite everybody urging for this not to go any further, today’s date, 19th June 2025, Iran had launched another attack—which was coded Operation True Promise III —on Israel’s capital, Tehran, and Arak (one of Israel’s most sensitive nuclear facilities and also a heavy-water nuclear reactor). This was a clear strategy and message from Iran, especially since the broken deal of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA). Ever since then, Iran has been reading red flags that it has resumed plutonium-related activities there. So, to avoid any nuclear bomb creation with their plutonium, this was a clear message that atomic escalation was a red line not to cross. Now, on top of the fact that the United States is that ONE friend who wants to stir up drama, they’re a hypocritical one as well when Donald Trump tweeted: “The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight… However, we can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel, and end this bloody conflict!!!” Now, is this guy being for real? This is when your friend tells you the drama, and you’re just shocked. You’re shocked at the thought of how one person can think everything can be taken back when suddenly switching to the neutral side as if they had always been there in the first place. I bet this is the general reaction of the world reacting behind their screens and the other world leaders watching from underground bunkers. If not, they are waiting for war to happen; diplomats are running behind the scenes, awaiting the United States’ response. Everybody knows one blow, strike, and ANYTHING will broaden a whole generational conflict. So naturally, everybody expected the U.S. to react logically, with peace and neutrality, or illogically, with fire and strikes. In contrast, the U.S. did not respond in any expected way. Instead, President Trump reaffirmed his commitment to “avoiding conflict,” while insisting that any potential strike wouldn’t escalate the war, but instead, serve as a means to end it. Furthermore, reiterating that they’re open to the option of launching a strike, but that “doesn’t mean they’re going to do it at all” ( CNN ). Personally, this sounds like someone trying to convince me that poking the bear won’t provoke it or make it act out. It’s one of those key reminders that politics are really just humans reacting selfishly, bringing out their inner teenagers in global conflicts. And you know why they get away with acting so immature? Because they have the power to do so. Just like a “fabulous” model can have the most controversial opinions and be the biggest bully, but still be wanted everywhere, because their gorgeous face is their power.

Hi all, Today’s blog will be inspired by my favorite character, Carrie Bradshaw, from the famous 2000’s TV show, Sex in the City, to make up for my break from writing. Besides that, enjoy the rest of my blog! I couldn’t help but wonder… In a world where borders define us and business binds us, could ten countries become one powerful economic force without the help of the biggest, most well-known economic country—the United States? The United States is known for being where all the business is. Anyone who wants to start a business in today’s world can start in China, Singapore, Dubai, etc., but they don’t. Everyone wants to start a business in the United States because they have the “best talent, best access to capital, and the best attitude. [America] has winners” (a billionaire interviewed by the School of Hard Knocks ). All in all, it’s THE place for its fashionable goods, food, and quite literally everything. But what happens when the world's  so-called biggest “winners” start playing hard to get? When tariffs go up, borders tighten, and  trade becomes a game of tug-of-war? Suddenly, the dream of doing business in the U.S. isn’t looking too good. The runway to suc c ess is crowded with red tape, and companies start to ask the question: What if we looked elsewhere?   And that’s when the creation of ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) slipped on its stilettos and stepped into the spotlight. Ten countries — each wildly different, each with its own culture, currency, and cuisine — decided they didn’t need the U.S. to be ambitious or successful. If President Trump wanted to play tough, they could play tough too — not with tanks or tantrums, but with the ultimate girl move: a silent, reciprocal tariff that said ‘Oh, you wanna play .’ Together, they all had something else: unity. Something the U.S. seems to lack for the next 4 years, with their people fighting more and more every day about the liberal left or the conservative right. News flash, people are upset with the price hikes, the mass deportation, significant financial education cuts, etc. And while America argued at the dinner table about who gets to carve the political turkey, ASEAN got to work setting their own table — with rice, chili, and a side of resilience. Instead of chasing a love affair with a superpower that kept ghosting them with tariffs and tantrums, they started swiping right on each other. Thailand leaned on Vietnam. Malaysia made eyes at Indonesia. And Singapore — as always — brought the WiFi and the wine. Together, they began building a world where trade didn't have to come with strings attached. Where investment wasn't dependent on the mood swings of Washington, they didn’t just shift away from the U.S. — they pivoted toward each other . They signed pacts ( RCEP , the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership), ramped up in diversification in the supply chain, and whispered sweet nothings to global manufacturers who were tired of the “will-they-won’t-they” drama with China and the U.S. The result? A steady stream of new factories, new investments, and yes — even new love letters from companies like Apple and Tesla asking, “Are you… free to talk?” It was as if ASEAN realized what so many of us do after a breakup: You don’t need someone who makes everything about them . You need someone — or in this case, nine someones — who are ready to build something real, long-term, and drama-free. So I couldn’t help but wonder… Maybe Southeast Asia didn’t just walk away from the United States. Maybe — stilettos clicking, borders opening — they were walking toward  the future.

Image from International Library - WordPress Before China’s growing modern economy in today’s world, at one point, they were working under a strict, centrally planned economy .  In short, it is an economy where the government decides who, what, and where resources will go—not the market. Resource allocation was so strict that the farmers, factories, and managers were set and owned by the central planners of the government. With this system put in place, there wasn’t any competition within the economy — prices were fixed, and consumers had little to no choice. For example, compared to a market-determined economy, the quantity and price of a bicycle would be fixed within the year, despite how much demand would fluctuate. For China in the 1700s, they were known for being one of “the world’s biggest single-entity economies,” but if you could guess by how China’s economy is thriving now, that system didn’t last ( Xu Bin , 2023). In the long run, a centrally planned economy doesn’t work out because the government also assigns people’s jobs and homes. So in response, workers are typically guaranteed lifetime employment with fixed wages. Fixed wages give people little incentive to work harder, so the economy's overall productivity would definitely decrease due to discouraged innovation. Remember what I mentioned about the government owning its farms and factories? Well, that was called collective farming, where villagers worked together on larger communes called People’s Communes . In the large communes, everything (tools, food, labor) was shared amongst each other. The government would, of course, collect almost all of the grain created and would distribute it across the country according to plan. This type of system was pushed to an extreme during Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward  (1958–1962), where the Chinese Communist Party tried to convert its agrarian society into a modern industrialized and communist society. This period of time is known to be one of the worst man-made disasters in history because the aftermath was so bad. In the process of increasing steel production, they were mainly being smelted in homemade furnaces, which led to poor-quality steel and the destruction of specific tools. In addition, false production reports were being exaggerated to impress higher-ups. In response, a massive famine killed tens of millions from starvation. Shortly after this, Mao Zedong’s influence declined, and China’s economy was rigid, inefficient, and cut off from global trade. This system needed urgent reformation, so that’s what led to China’s liberalization in 1978 from a centrally planned economy to a mixed economy . Post-1978 liberalization led to a bunch of new perks for its citizens. One was introducing the Household Responsibility System in the late 1970s. Farmers were allowed to keep and sell surplus crops even after hitting quotas, compared to pre-liberalization when they had to do the opposite. Another thing was the introduction of Special Economic Zones (SEZs), where cities like Shenzhen were open to foreign investment and market-based policies. These zones were known for being the hotspots for exports, manufacturing, and job growth. Later, private businesses became legalized in 1980, and State-Owned Enterprises started operating for profit goals. In short, in 2001, China was able to enter the global trade market yet again, along with prices being adjusted to the market and no longer set by the state. GDP growth was often over 10% in the 2000s and lifted hundreds out of poverty. Competition later increased and efficiency improved, especially in the real estate and architecture sector. As China began collaborating with foreign investors, designers, and architects, the country focused on defining and implementing its new reform agenda to support its market-based economic policies. International hotels emerged as one of the most significant drivers of China's reform post-liberalization, as they wanted to increase their tourist industry. Between 1978 and 1979, the tourist population increased from 1.8 to 4.2 million people ( Cole Roskam , 2021). These new five-star hotels were being built in Beijing, Shanghai, etc., which supported the growth of their tourist industry and economic expansion. Hotels had to cater to foreign travelers with amenities and atmospheres unavailable to most of China’s own residents. Collectively, hotels quickly transformed the skylines and built environments around the country, marking China’s rapid financial success.

Image from BBC It is a well-known fact that COVID-19 had a major impact on China’s economy. This global event, which affected not just China but the entire world, continued to influence the country’s economy even five years later. Although China’s economy has recovered since the downturn in 2020—when COVID-19 was at its peak—economic growth remained slow due to decreased consumer demand, falling exports, and a struggling real estate market. The largest real estate developers in China, Evergrande and Country Garden, faced significant debt problems as a result of the economic hit. This slowdown had a discernible impact on China’s economy and on consumer confidence in the property market. Unemployment also rose sharply; in June 2023, the rate for individuals aged 16 to 24 reached 21.3% ( The Los Angeles Times ). This record-high youth unemployment was driven by the sluggish economy and a mismatch between graduates’ skills and available job opportunities. In addition, these challenges contributed to the weakening of China’s yuan. The growing tensions between the U.S. and China in the trade and export sectors have contributed to China’s weakening economy. If you’d like to learn more, you can read my latest article , which briefly touches on the trade battle between the two countries. With all this in mind, there are rising concerns about deflation, which signals that demand in China’s economy may grow even weaker. Before we get further into this, you guys have to know what the loan prime rate (LPR)  is. The LPR was officially introduced in China on August 20, 2019, in order to further enhance monetary policy and promote market-based interest rates. It serves as a monthly benchmark interest rate to banks in China when they are serving their best (trustworthy and loyal) customers. There are two types of LPR: the one-year and the five-year LPR. The one-year LPR affects short-term loans like private and business loans. Whereas the five-year LPR is often used for mortgages. In response to injecting fresh momentum into the economy, China’s central bank, the People’s Bank of China , slashed its administrative interest rates in the hopes of increasing money and consumer demand. According to The Times of India, they announced that they’re going to slash their one year loan prime rate from 3.1% to 3.0%. Furthermore, they’re planning to decrease their five year loan prime rate by 10 basis points to 3.5%. It is a known macroeconomic government action that when the central bank cuts administrative interest rates, it’s their way of conducting an expansionary monetary policy. As a result of an expansionary monetary policy, people would tend to borrow more, encouraging consumers in households and businesses to spend and invest more. By increasing consumer spending, China hopes that its aggregate demand will increase and stimulate economic growth to help it get out of the current recession. With these newly slashed interest rates, these are the lowest loan prime rates that have ever been seen in history. However they did say that “the rate cuts will reduce interest payments on existing loans. It will also reduce the price of new loans.” In addition to these LPR cuts, Zichun Huang, a classic economist, claims that there will be more rate cuts in the near future and this won’t be the last time we’re going to see them. He suggests a dynamic and evolving financial environment and these rate cuts are going to offer both a relief to existing borrowers and creating a more attractive borrowing environment for new loans. We have still yet to see how China's economy will progress and how it responds long-term to it's monetary policy. Thank you for tuning in today and stay tuned for more articles!

Image from Apple When you think of buying innovation, sleek design, and groundbreaking technology, one name likely springs to mind: Apple Inc. Founded in 1976 by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne, Apple has grown from a modest garage startup into one of the most valuable companies in the world. From the first Apple I computer to the revolutionary iPhone, Apple’s journey has been a tale of vision, risk-taking, and a relentless commitment to pushing the boundaries of technology. Among Gen Z, it is an inside joke that if anybody else has a bad quality photo, it’s as if it’s taken on an “Android.” Of course, some people still prefer to buy Android, but Apple has won the world's favor as their go-to technology device. What truly sets Apple apart from any other technology company is its dedication to the user experience. Whether it be about the interface of the iPhone or the seamless integration of the Apple ecosystem, Apple has redefined how technology fits into our lives. From the first touch of an iPhone to AirPods, users can feel that every detail is meticulously designed to resonate with customers. Image from the Daily Messenger However, behind the scenes, Apple’s global operations have faced new challenges. Since 2018, tensions between Beijing and Washington have escalated due to tariffs, leading to what's known as the China-US trade war. Since Trump became the 45th US president in 2018, he has imposed tariffs on China to address trade imbalances and alleged unfair trade practices. In retaliation, China has imposed tariffs on the US as well. This tit-for-tat escalation has been detrimental to businesses in both countries, especially Apple. It is a known fact that many companies seek a supply chain from China due to its low costs to increase their profits. Following Trump's inauguration in 2025, he declared a national emergency regarding China's alleged drug trafficking, citing the increased influx of fentanyl into the US. This declaration led to a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports, subsequently rising to 20% in March. During the escalation of this trade war since 2018, China has retaliated with its tariffs, including a 15% duty on coal and liquefied natural gas, and a 10% tariff on oil and agricultural machinery. They have even blacklisted certain US companies and restricted exports of critical elements. In May 2025, according to US News and World Report, the US has increased its tariffs on Chinese imports by 145%, while China has retaliated with tariffs on US imports by 125%. This has strained global markets and created significant tensions in trade relations. In short, the peak of the trade war followed in May 2025, and the two countries have decided to slash each other’s tariffs for 90 days to facilitate further negotiations. The US has slashed its tariffs from 145% to 30%, and China has cut its tariffs from 125% to 10%. This has recently eased economic tensions and considerably changed the war. Throughout this trade war, Apple's supply chain has heavily depended on both the US and China, putting the company in a challenging position since 2018. The increased tariffs have raised production costs for their China-manufactured components and finished products. As a result, Apple has begun shifting its manufacturing away from China to mitigate the impact of tariffs and the Beijing-Washington trade tensions. Even though Apple representatives in India do not wish to comment yet, the Financial Times mentioned that they aim to move all of their US-sold iPhone imports from India by the end of 2025. In addition, other news sources like Bloomberg have also reported Apple’s plan to increase prioritization of their iPhones being imported from India, as this is a massive announcement for both groups, MAGA and MIGA. These groups are associated with Donald Trump's political messaging, particularly in his messages and tweets online, and were significant in his 2016 political campaign. MAGA is an acronym for Make America Great Again, and it was Trump’s central theme for his political agenda about America’s economic revitalization and national pride. MIGA stands for “Make India Great Again,” a satirical take on Trump’s original MAGA slogan. In this case, MIGA would be favorable and not for MAGA to complete this process in an 18-month time frame. However, moving all of their production from China to India would be quite impossible because, in theory, China is irreplaceable. All in all, I hope to see how this progression in their production unfolds in this 18-month time frame. It will be particularly interesting to observe the strategies they implement as they attempt to transition their manufacturing processes away from China, a country that has long been a dominant player in global supply chains. The complexities involved in such a significant shift cannot be understated, as they will need to navigate various challenges, including finding alternative countries that can match the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and quality standards that China has historically provided. Moreover, it will be fascinating to analyze the potential impacts of this shift on their overall production capacity and operational logistics. Will they opt for countries in Southeast Asia, such as Vietnam or Thailand, which have been emerging as viable alternatives? Or will they explore options in regions like India or Eastern Europe, which may offer different advantages? Additionally, the timeline of 18 months is relatively short for such a substantial change, and it raises questions about their ability to execute this transition smoothly without significant disruptions to their supply chain. Furthermore, it would be insightful to monitor how this move might affect their relationships with suppliers and partners who have been integral to their operations in China. The potential for increased costs, changes in lead times, and the need for new partnerships could have far-reaching implications. For now, as we await further developments, it is crucial to keep an eye on their progress and the broader implications of shifting production in the context of global trade dynamics and economic relationships.

Image from Banyan Tree Hotels and Resorts I bet you would never imagine that the luxury hotel you’re staying in originated from an abandoned tin mine. You probably thought it was built on a beachfront or coastal land. In the 1980s, Phuket, Thailand, was known for its beautiful beaches, but not in Bang Tao Bay. There was a lot of mining and pollution in that area, so it was deemed unusable. However, Ho Kwon Ping and Claire Chiang saw the vision of creating this toxic wasteland as a chance to create a new kind of travel experience for tourists—one where there would be a balanced mix of sustainability and luxury. Since then, they have been known as Banyan Tree Resorts. They’re known as a luxury hospitality brand that has created 70+ resorts in 23 countries. Today, we will learn their origin story and how they have progressed to survive in today’s economy. Image from Banyan Group Residences Before this started, Ho Kwon Ping was a young journalist and activist at Stanford University. Although he attended one of the world's most elite schools, he was later expelled due to his participation in the protests of the Black Students Union against William Shockley. This controversy stretched from the 1960s to the 1970s and was based on William Shockley’s racist and eugenicist views. One of his views even included advocating for the voluntary sterilization of Black women. In addition, in 1977, Ho was arrested for writing politically sensitive articles and had violated Singapore’s Internal Security Act. When he exited jail, he took over the family business in factories, but later realized he wasn’t into this; he wanted to make an impact. He went on vacation with his wife, Claire Chiang, to Phuket, Thailand, and stumbled upon the area of Bang Tao Bay. They found the land beautiful, so they bought the plot because it was relatively cheap. However, shortly after their purchase, they discovered it was an abandoned tin mine, and it was so toxic that nothing could grow on it! Even the fishers had warned them that nothing would ever live there. Obviously, with these warnings, most people would normally walk away. However, Ho Kwon Ping and Claire saw some clear potential in this plot of land. They decided to work with scientists to grow trees and improve the soil to revive the land. In 1987, they called this big project Laguna Phuket , a resort project. However, they had a big problem: it was a piece of land that didn’t have a beach, as most resorts have the reputation of having a beach within their premises. So that’s where the couple created the concept of each villa being a private pool villa instead of standard rooms. In addition, they created the idea of an Asia-cultured spa instead of the usual European approach. They made employees walk barefoot—a sign of respect in Asia—as well as using local healing techniques and Asian cultural attire. When they opened, their gamble paid off, and they were known for setting new global standards for a resort. With everybody liking their resort, they decided to double down and expand to many other countries: Bali, the Maldives, Morocco, the Seychelles, and Mexico. As a long-standing resort, Banyan Tree has been through its fair share of challenges over the years. The financial crises in 2001 and 2009 hit the travel industry hard, and the SARS outbreak in 2003 only worsened things. Then, in 2004, the Indian Ocean tsunami struck—impacting nine of their 20 resorts at the time and badly damaging their flagship properties in Phuket. But instead of just rebuilding and moving on, Banyan Tree saw a bigger opportunity. They decided to make sustainability a core part of who they are. They launched the first-ever resort-based marine lab in the Maldives, inviting experts to help educate guests and locals about marine conservation. And in 2007, they took things further by opening a conservation lab in Bintan to focus on protecting biodiversity. These efforts weren’t just about recovery—they were about building a better, more responsible future for travel.

Image from Bloomberg Former founder Gibran Huzaifah of E-Fishery was an Indonesian-founded startup that caused investors to go through a $300 million meltdown. In short, it all stemmed from a prototype that helped farmers feed their animals to an over 2,000-employee agricultural company. To an investor’s eye, this company was the ideal company to invest in for the long term. The numbers made investors exultant, as they saw significant progress, but was the actual progress happening in real life as well, or just on paper? In reality, at this point, E-Fishery was on the brink of going into debt within 3 months. The story originates from the starting decision to plug in fake numbers into the company’s financial report. Although Gibran was hesitant at first, sure that investors would catch him, he did what a company couldn’t do in half a decade. He made his company a winner, at least in the financial reports and in the eyes of investors. That was when, in late 2018, investors were blindly putting their money into what seemed like a long-term gain, but it would eventually cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. Soon enough, his brand image was known for its market value worth $1.4 billion, and its auto fish feeders were boosting agricultural productivity and efficiency. All this started when Gibran was raised in the slums of East Jakarta, his family was the usual: a father who was a construction worker and a stay-at-home mother. He was enrolled at the Institute Teknologi, which was known as the “MIT of Indonesia,” the Institute Teknologi of Bandung. But when Gibran learned his family was going through financial struggles, as an underage kid, he had to be independent of his family. That’s where he enrolled in a fish farming course, and he was inspired to buy fish ponds. He developed an interest in the agricultural world, but it was a tough world to survive in. The allocation and birthing of spawned eggs were hard enough because they wasted a lot of money and produced excess algae. In the agricultural market, prices also fluctuated frequently. However, if Gibran was able to make E-fishery, I bet you could tell this guy was determined to thrive in this business world. Gibran had created small eateries and managed over 70 ponds. In addition, he had also made his seafood fast-food chain. Following this was one warning that Gibran would never forget in his life. The one warning that would turn everything around for him. A local farmer warned him that with expansion in the agricultural business, it could get tedious and tiring to feed so many fish. What followed was the prototype of his auto fish feeder. He believed it was “more scalable and helps more people,” which drove his motivation to make this work as a new startup. He grew awareness of his latest startup by traveling all over Indonesia’s rutted roads and village paths to market this newfound product in the market. As more and more farmers bought his prototypes and provided credible testimonials of their positive experiences, he looked to expand the business — the dream of every company. The more pitches and business models he had to present, the more he eventually got his first investor, Aqua-Spark, in 2015. Aqua-Spark is a Netherlands-based investment firm focused on sustainable aquaculture, and it initially funded $750,000. However, as the company grew, Gabrin saw the costs range from $400 to $600 over time, depending on size and discounts. He was not in a position to charge higher prices because 10% of Indonesians lived in poverty. So he thought of instead of farmers buying his product, he would allow farmers to rent out his auto fish feeders. Despite this innovative approach, he had to deploy more and more of his products into the market quickly to cover the costs of all the products he had made in previous years. At the time, he had to pay upfront for his expenses, so he was quite literally burning through cash. That’s when Aqua-Spark came up with the extra funding of $1.5 million and the last $500,000 would only come if he added more investors. With the time he had, Gibran was having a hard time finding investors who believed in him like how Aqua-Spark did. As his sole motivation was that he would only get $1 million instead of the $1.5 million he could potentially have under his lap. So Gibran went to go ask other farmers how he could manage to get investors interested. Their advice was to “massage the numbers,” and that “[he] knew it was wrong, but when everyone is doing it and they’re still doing it, you question if it’s really wrong.” At that moment, he had raised $4 million in funds and secured a significant amount of capital from Singapore and Southeast Asia as a whole. The pandemic gave him the perfect chance to cover all of his costs, and by then, he didn’t need any more money. So at that point when he didn’t need the money anymore, he thought numbers would go down. However, the business was doing genuine good numbers. And to his usual faltering money growth approach, where he inflated 20-30% of his numbers, hoping to catch up to the real numbers with this extra money lying around. You would think that things were going so good for E-Fishery. When did it all go wrong? Eventually, his luck will run out, and his karma will catch up with him. At the back of his mind, he knew the deceit was bad, but he believed he had made an impact in the agricultural world. Gabrin was focusing his moral compass on the “trolley problem”: Sacrificing one person from dying, or let five people die because of his route. He couldn’t stop, as globally well-known investors were pressuring the company's growth. Despite his exultant numbers and motivation to keep going, there were red flags that became apparent in hindsight. When asked for annual reports from the Singapore holding company, they had coincidentally had the 2020 year report not filed until 2024. According to Bloomberg, E-Fishery also claimed to have 300,00 feeding units and more than 44,000 fish and shrimp farmers were buying from them. This is an impressive number, but this would have a disastrous impact on the economy in general, if it were true. Other red flags that were ignored were that one investor wanted to connect E-Fishery with another company that was a feed producer. This partnership would have been a clear win-win for both parties. However, Gibran reportedly had ghosted them both —the investor and the feed producers. Another had said that Gibran would OFTEN be 3 months late in giving basic numbers on his financial report. Other feed producers’ senior executives also mentioned that it was unusual due to the “total lack of change in their sales.” Image from the Business Times The breaking point came on December 6th, when a whistleblower sent the company's board documents revealing discrepancies between reported revenue and the actual number of products farmers were using. Apparently, external money managers were receiving different numbers than the internal money managers, and these individuals were concerned about why their numbers looked so different. The following night, he was the most scared he had ever been in his whole life, and he was deeply reflecting on what he had done. On December 9th, Gibran attended a meeting with the board members and explained what had happened. Some board members were aware of the inflated numbers, while others were not. On December 11th, Gibran came clean to the co-founder of Aqua-Spark, Novogratz. Imagine the feeling of coming clean to his first investor and how disappointed Novogratz had felt, especially when Gibran considered her his mentor. On December 13th, Gibran was called to another meeting with the E-Fishery Steering Board. He was introduced to the new interim chief executive and chief financial officer, and they were going to take over the company from that day on, especially the bank accounts. That was the day when Gabrin’s chapter ended with his beloved creation. There was an upset among loads of people who knew about E-Fishery. One person on LinkedIn had expressed concern that this happening is a disgrace to the Founder and the AgriTech business world, especially in Indonesia, as it is a disrespect to investment as well, because these are built on trust and relationships. It is a well-rounded thought that this has hurt the over 40 million smallholder farmers who are the backbone of Indonesia. This event had affected the social ladder for Founders who don’t come from family businesses and the community of farmers.